Inconvenient: AGU defies #Exxonknew critics, votes to continue relationship with ExxonMobil

The largest geophysical union in the world, the American Geophyscial Union, has decided to continue a relationship with Exxon amid all the #Exxonknew attacks that are going on. This sends a strong message to people that would seek to punish others for holding an alternate viewpoint on climate change and for not having the same viewpoint. I’m a member, and this came in my email today. – Anthony

AGU_logo

AGU Board Votes to Continue Relationship with ExxonMobil and to Accept Sponsorship Support

Dear AGU Member,

As you know from my previous messages, the question of AGU’s relationship with ExxonMobil (and our relationship with the larger oil and gas industry) has been a topic of great discussion for the last few months. When the most recent request to end ExxonMobil sponsorship and address questions about how our community should respond to the urgency of climate change was received in February, in the form of a letter signed by more than 170 AGU members and others in the climate science community, we treated it with the utmost concern and respect. The Board spent several hours over the course of our two-day meeting last week discussing the diversity of opinions amongst the membership of AGU, as well as the pros/cons of the various choices we might make, giving each equal importance and weight.

In my nearly 5 year tenure on the AGU Board, I can say that this was one of the most important and nuanced discussions* the Board has ever had. We knew that our decision would have implications for our members, our programs and our relationships with the many sectors and industries that comprise AGU’s broad membership. We knew that it could even result in the loss of members, as some individuals on both sides of the issue vowed to resign if our decision did not support their view. Given the importance of this decision, we proceeded carefully by reviewing more than 400 pages of background material** including a detailed report provided by the letter writers, every comment documented at our Council meeting and every communication sent to me by an individual member. We then conferred in a manner that allowed the range of opinions on the subject to be expressed and considered.

As with our members, board members presented various viewpoints and we thoroughly considered all of them. We had detailed discussions about whether ExxonMobil’s current actions are inconsistent with our organizational support policy in two areas: 1) promoting science misinformation and funding groups that are currently promoting misinformation about science, and 2) the potential impact of publicity about investigations into the company on AGU’s reputation. We concluded that it is not possible for us to determine unequivocally whether ExxonMobil is participating in misinformation about science currently, either directly or indirectly, and that AGU’s acceptance of sponsorship of the 2015 Student Breakfast does not constitute a threat to AGU’s reputation. We also discussed a multitude of options for moving forward, ranging from severing all ties with ExxonMobil, to maintaining our engagement with ExxonMobil but no longer accepting their sponsorship, to maintaining the relationship and sponsorship agreement, as well as developing new ways to strengthen our engagement and influence with the energy industry – and everything in-between.

In all of those discussions, we were careful to listen to each other closely and respectfully, even when we didn’t agree on a particular point. We did not take up our final votes until the Board affirmed that all viewpoints were heard and understood and that they were ready to make decisions.

In the end, by a majority vote, the board passed a motion that approved “continuing our current engagement between ExxonMobil and AGU including acceptance of funding from ExxonMobil.” (In 2015 that support consisted of a $35,000 sponsorship of the Student Breakfast at the Fall Meeting; based on current information, if we are offered support for 2016, we can accept it).

We were unanimous in our view that this issue has presented an opportunity and an obligation for us to exercise our convening role by bringing together those with diverse views across the science community to engage more directly with the private sector, and with ExxonMobil in particular. AGU is committed to creating an environment for dialogue about the roles of the science and business communities in all the sectors where science plays an essential role, and to exploring broadly and deeply the issues of energy, environment and climate change with the energy industry, our members and other stakeholders.

As always, I encourage you to share your thoughts and input on these decisions with us. You can do so by leaving a comment on this post, or by sending an email to president@agu.org. In particular, I ask that you share your ideas about how we can more productively engage with the energy industry moving forward. We are already working on plans for an event/events to bring together the many views on these issues in a civil dialogue, but that cannot be the end of our engagement. Our intent is to develop a longer-term effort that draws on our ability as a scientific community to engage with the private sector to grapple with the challenging issues faced by society – including not just climate and energy issues but also scientific integrity.

In closing, I want you all to know that, whether you agree with the Board’s decisions or not, I personally thank you for your commitment to your science and your commitment to AGU. Even though it has been difficult at times, seeing you speak out, passionately and thoughtfully, about an issue like this has made me incredibly proud of our community and honored to serve as your president. Please don’t limit that passion and action to just this one issue. AGU is your organization, and when you engage with it like you have these last few months, you make it a better place for science.

Because we know that you may have questions regarding the Board’s decision and the path we have chosen for moving forward, we have scheduled two times next week for interested AGU members to call in and share their thoughts with Executive Director/CEO Christine McEntee, President-elect Eric Davidson and me. The first call will be held on 20 April at 10 A.M. ET; the second will be held on 22 April at 3 P.M. ET. Space will be available on a first-come, first-served basis. To participate in one of these calls, please email your R.S.V.P. to feedback@agu.org.

A copy of this statement is also posted on AGU’s leadership blog, From the Prow, where you can also see my previous posts on this topic: Exxon, AGU, and Corporate Support; and UPDATE: Exxon, AGU, and Corporate Support.


Sincerely,

Margaret Leinen

 

*Prior to any discussion on these issues, all Board members were asked to declare any potential conflicts of interest. Three individuals declared potential conflicts of interest – though it was noted that nearly every university represented in the room receives some degree of funding from ExxonMobil. One Board member volunteered to recuse himself from voting on the issue and that offer was accepted.

 

**Prior to the meeting, Board members reviewed a nearly-400-page packet of background materials that included copies of all correspondence AGU has received on the subject: the letters sent to us (and our responses); the more than 150 emails we received; the numerous tweets and blog comments that have come in over the last few months; a detailed report on ExxonMobil activities presented by the originators of the letter (in addition to the letter itself and other supporting materials); published news reports and peer-reviewed articles on ExxonMobil’s activities; statements about climate change from ExxonMobil’s website, a transcript from one of its shareholder meetings, and a letter that ExxonMobil sent to us; a report published by the Union of Concerned Scientists; and a report on the feedback provided by the Council during their meeting in March.
Advertisements

80 thoughts on “Inconvenient: AGU defies #Exxonknew critics, votes to continue relationship with ExxonMobil

  1. […]a report published by the Union of Concerned Scientists;[…]

    I’m not making light of this, but Kenji probably didn’t approve of that report. I’d put a lot more weight behind the opinions of the AGU membership and less on outside interests trying to influence the AGU.

    • There is a solemn social obligation to engage and grapple, despite the pain of accepting their filthy money.
      It’s a matter of principle!
      None of this precious adhockery for the AGU, by golly.

      • We knew that it could even result in the loss of members, as some individuals on both sides of the issue vowed to resign if our decision did not support their view.

        Well let’s hope that all those principled warmists will now honour their “vows” and hike off. ( Of course they won’t do that, sadly. )

        It seems this is more like a journalists use of the word “vow” trying to imply someone has made a deep, solemn engagement rather than just said something.

        I doubt anyone “vowed” to leave, probable more like threatened to.

      • If half the actors who have sworn to leave the country if a Republican were elected actually did so, there would be no more movie industry in the US.

    • “Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.” Why would AGU cut off a source of funding, even if from a putative “enemy”? AGU exhibits rational behavior here, something in generally short supply lately.

  2. One should remember that W. J. Bryan of creationist legislation infamy ran for President as what passed for a leftist at the time. Trying to legislate against or sue their scientific opponents is an old tactic of the left (too?), and must be opposed. Why argue your point when you can organize a boycott?

  3. They decided in favor of democracy over tyranny? Phew! Too bad they still have no clue about what “consensus science” is doing to science. Baby steps, I guess.

  4. Many members of the AGU want lucrative jobs with major oil companies. They aren’t about to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

    This kind of things has long been a problem for government agencies. The government generally hasn’t paid as well as private industry. Government geologists (for instance) would happily take a better paying job with one of the majors. That makes it hard for them to properly regulate the industry which they don’t want to alienate. It’s called regulatory capture.

    Here’s an example that deals with the SEC.

    The list of officials who have left the SEC for highly lucrative jobs in the private sector and who sometimes have returned to the SEC includes Arthur Levitt, Robert Khuzami,[66] Linda Chatman Thomsen,[67] Richard H. Walker,[68] Gary Lynch[69] and Paul R. Berger.[70] The Project on Government Oversight (POGO) released a report on May 13, 2011 which found that between 2006 and 2010, 219 former SEC employees sought to represent clients before the SEC.[71][72] Former employees filed 789 statements notifying the SEC of their intent to represent outside clients before the commission, some filing within days of leaving the SEC.[71][72]

    Reporter Matt Taibbi calls the SEC a classic case of regulatory capture[73] and the SEC has been described as an agency that was set up to protect the public from Wall Street, but now protects Wall Street from the public.

    • “Regulatory Capture” well known in most leadership/management/legislative circles of government, but you have not provided evidence for this at AGU.

      • You’re right. I was applying the duck test.

        If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family Anatidae on our hands.

    • commieBob

      That is the ‘revolving door’ that seems to be ‘the way’ with certain agencies in the US Gov’t. Isn’t it true that there are examples with the EPA as well? By that I mean EPA-NGO-EPA and vise versa.

      The defence is mostly “We need experts” and that is reasonable, but there are eyebrows raised and rightly so when there is a parallel with Cop-Mob-Cop relationship. Another analogy is chicken flock – fox pack – chicken flock.

      In the World Bank they have a year cooling off period. If you quit you can’t take in work from the WB as a consultant or be on a team for a calendar year. Then, if you are still an expert, you can advise. But ‘within days’? That is not an industry norm.

      • The way science is done in the oil and gas industry is fundamentally different than in climate activism and climate academia. In the oil and gas industry, you get an opportunity everyday to find out if your theories are correct or utter hogwash. If they are correct, you get a promotion and a bonus. If they are hogwash you get fired.

        In the climate activism and climate academia world, testing of theories is frowned upon or outright verboten. You only advance by proving how closely you are able to regurgitate conventional dogma.

        Now which one sounds more like real science?

    • “The government generally hasn’t paid as well as private industry.”
      You don’t want them to, either, believe me. Taxpayers can’t afford to pay government employees more than they get themselves. Besides – that’s the way it used to work – not so sure any more. People used to be ashamed to work for the government; it meant poor pay. Then they started saying they needed to compete with the private sector and pay more. Government workers unionized. Now they’ve got job security and benefits due to unionizing. You can’t fire ’em. They put them on paid leave for years.

    • “The government generally hasn’t paid as well as private industry.” ….. ppphhhhhhttttttt.

      You would need to add a bunch of qualifiers to that statement to make it anywhere near honest. Entry level government pays better, mid-level pays better, get up to past a GS12 type position, with a COMPETENT personnel comparisons and then you can typically start to make more in private sector.

      Regional differences also come into play, with the supply/demand component.

      The majority of government jobs (openings) are also protected as internal only … tell me why these “low paying jobs” need to be restricted as available only to others with “low paying jobs”….

  5. Yes, Anthony Watts but not just “a strong message to people that would seek to punish others for holding an alternate viewpoint on climate change and for not having the same viewpoint”. But to the people who are attacked vilified and scorned for questioning the so called accepted viewpoint. You are not alone.

    Thank you Anthony

    michael

    • Wrong. I am a licensed professional Environmental Geologist in California. The state regulatory geologists I work with charge more than $100 per hour for their services. They are criminals ripping off the taxpayers as well as private industry. They are not leaving for the private sector.

      • So private-sector professional geologists in CA don’t bill more than $100/hr?

        $100/hr is cheap for professional services. That’s not $100 in their pocket.

        This has a CA firm’s charge rates from 2015, first I saw on a quick google http://www.rpvca.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/7055 .

        Staff Geologist billed at $95/hr
        Senior Staff Geologist $110/hr
        Project Geologist $140/hr
        Associate Geologist $160/hr
        Principal Geologist $210/hr

        Divide those by 3 and you’ll have their approximate salary. Rest covers benefits, overhead, company profit, etc.

        As a “licensed professional Environmental Geologist in California,” how have you not had the time and responsibility in a firm to know this?

      • Well if it makes you feel better, I have consulted as a geologist and geophysicist for most of the big oil companies, and would never work that cheaply. And that IS directly in my pocket, they pay all expenses on top of it.

  6. I’d be interested in seeing the EMPIRICAL proof of CAGW presented to the AGU. Recitation of past warming and its effects and citing model output are non-starters.

    • After all the years of billions of dollars and millions of wasted man-hours, there is STILL no proof that any form AGW is actually happening except by UHI and urban affects and data manipulation.

      Exxon may have heard story tales about it from the likes of Hansen et al, but would have quite rightly ignored it as the unproven hypothesis it still is.

      I would have been totally irresponsible to make business decisions based on a fairy tale. !

  7. If one follows the link to the 170 signers at The Natural Museum site, you will see the fine group that gave this gem press coverage. You may also want to look at the NHM board.

  8. How can common sense and integrity be restored to science when the other side has “Bill Nye the Science Guy.”? Asked about about whether pursuing criminal charges against differing opinions creates a chilling effect in scientific research, Bill Nye the Science Guy answered,

    “That there is a chilling effect on scientists who are in doubt about climate change, I think that is good.”

    Wonderful sentiment Mr. Nye for totalitarian regimes. For free and open societies not so wonderful.

  9. The whole thing was started by a letter signed by “…160 members of AGU and others…” to the AGU board. First, what qualifications did “others” have to justify putting their names on a letter supposedly from members of the AGU?. Who were they and did any of them have criminal records? Second, the whole thing ballooned into 400 pages of letters and emails the board discussed before they made their decision. How about opening up that 400 page portfolio so we can see what the issues brought up were? It takes an informed public to make a demcracy work.

  10. An idea is forming in my mind about how to clear the climateer chaff out of technical societies. Surely they have enough integrity to resign in a huff. No? What about AGU ‘s ethics committee chairman? Oh right, I forgot! Let me predict that these science lite guys need the AGU more than it needs them. Do they get to withdraw their papers in self righteous indignation? I guess that is hoping for too much.

  11. Geophysical Union:

    “In particular, I ask that you share your ideas about how we can more productively engage with the energy industry moving forward.”

    What’s new?

    The winding and special pleading before that is mentioned is entertaining though :D

  12. This is a welcome albeit unexpected outcome. The long process discussion reminds me of fed regulatory process rules: ‘we solicited input from all sides and considered it all very carefully’.
    Lets hope some of the rabid do resign from AGU in protest. Starting with Peter Gleick. Followed by Michael Mann. Never to return.

  13. I looked at the Original letter and did a quick count…
    there were about 100 signatures total
    70 were members/ about 1/3 student members
    35 non members of which another half were students…
    so maybe actually 40 non student members?

    can’t say what the “additional” 150 signatures represent, but the first sample is not overwhelming

  14. So what they are saying…is that if someone gave them enough money….they would be against global warming too
    …follow the money
    /snark

  15. Good On for the AGU! If the decision had gone the other way science would have been the poorer for it. Repressing opposing points of view will never be a good thing – for science or society.

  16. In 2015 that support consisted of a $35,000 sponsorship

    Heh. Given the number and seniority of all the people involved, and the amount of time spent on the issue, my guess is that they spent well in excess of $100K arguing about a $35K sponsorship.

  17. “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”~ Mahatma Gandhi

    It’s chilling to see Big Government attack freedom of thought, freedom of speech, the Scientific Method, and free-market capitalism when it defies Big Government’s CAGW religious dogma.

    The Left is on the cusp of losing the CAGW war against science.

    When the CAGW cult is eventually destroyed, the blowback against failed Leftist ideologies will be staggering.

    • Actually, SAMURAI, the CAGW cultists will move on to the next alarmist scam and resulting tax-payer funded pig trough, while the weary public will be unaware that anything was ever amiss and the media will allow the whole thing to fade into the mists of history. The special interests that are now profiting from government largesse will continue to buy patronage and the “temporary” green/renewable subsidies will roll on, out of public scrutiny.

      I’ve forgotten who first said it, but every American movement eventually turns into a rackett.

      • Dog daddy– I hope you’re wrong, Dogdaddy, but nothing in human history has come close to approaching the sheer size and scope of this CAGW scandal, which has run up $TRILLIONS in wasted taxpayer money, and leaving a trail of destroyed industries, lost jobs, economic chaos, and destroyed lives in its wake.

        Once the CAGW hypothesis fails spectacularly, I really think man’s failed 100-yr experiment with Socialism/tyranny/ facism/ (whatever you wish to call it), will be seriously questioned.

        These tyrannical forms of government and their awful short and long-term consequences simply cannot be allowed to continue.

      • dogdaddyblog,

        Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket

        Eric Hoffer

        Here’s another of his quotes that I like and is generally appropriate:

        One of the surprising privileges of intellectuals is that they are free to be scandalously asinine without harming their reputations

    • “The Left is on the cusp of losing the CAGW war against science…”

      Alas if only this were true here in Alberta where our new Carbon Tax was revealed in the budget yesterday. by our new Left-leaning provincial overlords. If you had told me 30 years ago the government was going to make gas more expensive to try and change the weather…(shakes head and walks away muttering!)

      • Well, you were warned. See “Our Last Year of Freedom?” by Monckton ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n32xl9fy0Wo ) I find statements such as “The Left is on the cusp of losing the CAGW war against science…” so naive as to be chilling. IMSHO, Exxon Mobil management should be hit with a shareholder lawsuit, during which a discovery process should be able to ferret out reports to management on the state of climate science. And I don’t just mean alarmist stuff, I mean the sort of papers that get discussed at WUWT every day. I’m not a lawyer, but I should think that due diligence regarding oil wells that might be 30 year endeavors demands that the regulatory environment be considered. And that demands, in turn, that the science that presumably informs impending and threatened regulation. If I were Exxon Mobil CEO, I’d probably want a thorough report at least every 3-5 years.
        Now that even US Senators are calling for RICO lawsuits against “climate change deniers”, hopefully CO2 realists will up their games, and go after the people who are playing along with the climate nonsense. Or should we wait until AFTER Watts, Lindzen, Happer, et. al. are on trial, before we collectively muster an aggressive counter-attack??
        Stimulating discussions on a blog are nice, and all. AFAICT, though, they don’t amount to much in the real world, where people who are happy to take away your democratic rights are scheming at the very top levels of very powerful governments. According to Monckton in the video I linked to, only the Chinese prevented a step towards world government via the Copenhagen Accord.
        I don’t think relying on entities like the Chinese government for our democratic rights, and on happy thoughts such as “The Left is on the cusp of losing the CAGW war against science” to keep government RICO attack dogs away from our heroes like Watts, Happer, et.al., is very smart. I suggest we pay close attention to Europeans who are discovering that many of their rights have been handed over to the EU, and how hard their struggles will now be to take those rights back. Better never to hand them over.

  18. This sends a strong message to people that would seek to punish others for holding an alternate viewpoint on climate change and for not having the same viewpoint.

    Given the delicacy and diplomacy involved in the letter, the non-unanimous nature of the decision, the recognition of the reach of exxon funding throughout geophysics academia, I’m not sure that it sends a strong message.

    If there has been crimes committed, the courts will decide. Holding an alternate viewpoint is not a crime. Racketeering is, and the courts should decide if that was committed. Until they’re proven guilty, should a scientific organization sever its relationship with an important sponsor,in this time of reduced scientific spending?

    It’s nuanced. The AGU went “no”. But they send no strong message.

    • …the recognition of the reach of exxon funding throughout geophysics academia…
      =======

      Like a billionaire throwing a dime at a panhandler, Exxon gave a paltry $35,000 to the AGU for a student breakfast.. Compare that figure to the millions Exxon gives every year to corrupt politicians who catapult global warming propaganda:
      http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/accountability/political-involvement/political-contributions-and-lobbying

      You don’t get much “reach” for $35,000. Hillary charges $200,000 to speak at breakfast.

      • Like a billionaire throwing a dime at a panhandler, Exxon gave a paltry $35,000 to the AGU for a student breakfast.

        Sure. I was referring to their reach into academia, not into the AGU, as such:

        Three individuals declared potential conflicts of interest – though it was noted that nearly every university represented in the room receives some degree of funding from ExxonMobil. – First footnote of the letter in the OP.

      • Sure. I was referring to their reach into academia

        Can you provide examples of the academic organizations to which you refer and evidence of their “reach”? If there is an academic institution out there that is a bubbling cauldron of skeptical views on climate change due to influence from Exxon (or even without influence from Exxon for that matter) I’m certain this audience would like to know who they are.

      • davidmhoffer,

        I’d sure like to know of any.

        The most successful tactic the Left has used is to corrupt the Boards of professional organizations. Prof Lindzen explains how it’s done, and he names names.

        The result is fodder for the eco-lemming contingent: endlesss appeals to corrupted authorities that all sing from the same hymn book. So the ignorantii can all parrot: “But every scientific and professional organization…”&etc.

        It is pathetically easy to buy 4 out of the typical 6 Board votes. The rank-and-file membership is not allowed to vote on the position taken. They’re never even allowed to exchange views via membership contact lists, which the governing Boards keep confidential.

        When the erstwhile Soviets realized they could never defeat the West militarily, they switched their emphasis to institutions, like the gov’t .edu factories and professional .orgs.

        The result is crystal clear: now they all march in lockstep. Only the lemmings believe it’s sincere and in good faith, when in reality it’s just part and parcel of the CAGW hoax.

      • Can you provide examples of the academic organizations to which you refer and evidence of their “reach”?

        I’m just inferring from the footnote, David. though it was noted that nearly every university represented in the room receives some degree of funding from ExxonMobil.

      • The result is crystal clear: now they all march in lockstep. Only the lemmings believe it’s sincere and in good faith, when in reality it’s just part and parcel of the CAGW hoax.

        Always good to see a grand conspiracy theory.

        This affects all of academia, all countries, and all academic journals does it?

      • dbstealy: Another mindless opinion from ‘Seth’, who obviously didn’t read the Lindzen reference.

        Got a link to the Lindzen reference?

      • Juan Slayton,

        Usually I refer folks asking to do a search, but you’ve always been rational and non-confrontational, so here’s one article. (See Sec. 2 in particular.) There are more, I just don’t have them saved like I did this one.

      • Seth, the documentation for the claim has been presented many times.
        Is it our fault that you refuse to see anything that goes against your religion?

      • Seth;
        I’m just inferring from the footnote,

        Bullsh*t. You implied that there was influence to their cause by Exxon. It matters not what you reference, only that you provide evidence that such influence exists. Name a single academic institution that has taken up the deni*r cause in any way shape or form, let alone due to Exxon’s reach.

  19. Hey everybody listening and their friends and family – Earth Day coming up soon. How about we all take everything we own that’s derived from fossil fuels and throw it in a dumpster or, better still, give every such thing to homeless people.

    Is it too late to start a campaign for fossil justice?

  20. Those awful petrochemical companies. Providing 1st world quality power and reliability. Highly diversified ownership (hello your super funds). Great jobs. Awesome technological innovation to raise us out of the dark (Mohammedian) ages. Could benefit 3rd world immensely if 1st world politicians could get it right.

    Shut them down immediately. No hope of green-left communist revolution if they are contributing to raising standards of living.

  21. I suspect their may have been a trace of anxiety in that boardroom about the potential near term collapse of the CAGW myth. Why bite the hand that feeds you?

    Particularly with respect to the Exxon tiger biting the Attorneys General so hard.
    Perhaps a Josh cartoon? 19 A.G.s urging the 20th to poke the sleeping tiger.
    And a hungry looking tiger eyeing the 19 remaining ones as the first goes down his throat?

  22. As for the signatories of the shameful, anti-constitutional anti-science letter, reminiscent of the witch hunts centuries ago, one can only look forward to a time in the not-too-distant future when they will in fact feel the much-deserved shame for having done so.

  23. It’s a lot easier to demand that others make sacrifices, than it is to make those sacrifices yourself.

  24. Thanks Anthony,
    The email from the AGU sounds like they took a reasonable approach to the situation. However, it would be a bit more believable as ‘good intentions’ if they had not positioned themselves in the climate advocacy camp with their 2013 revised position statement on climate change (i.e., “Human-induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action”). It is totally absurd for any organization of scientists, engineers, educators, etc. to take a hard position on a particular scientific theory, whether proven to their satisfaction or not. As Albert Einstein said: “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”

  25. What is it that “Exxon-knew”?
    Was it, what does – and does not – cause climate to change?
    If it was, then Exxon know something about which no-one else has a clue. If they understand causes and movers of climate, they are the only ones who do.

    Yes, that would be a good enough reason to burn them at the stake.

  26. Maybe if Exxon would just ‘fess up, and say that yes, they knew that CO2 was a “greenhouse gas”, and that yes, they knew it could, in theory, add some as-yet-unknown amount of warming, but none so far could be attributed to our CO2. They should confess that they knew that plants love CO2, and thus by our burning fossil fuels, we were not only enhancing our lives, but all life on the planet as well. Shame on them.

  27. We concluded that it is not possible for us to determine unequivocally whether ExxonMobil is participating in misinformation about science currently, either directly or indirectly

    What a mealy-mouthed stance !!!

    HEY, BOARDMEMBERS !,
    Do you think it is possible to determine unequivocally whether the letter writers participate in misinformation about science?

    • I for one would surely like a look at the 400 pages from the letter writers. It would be great if members of the AGU here on WUWT could petition the board to provide these documented arguments so that the light of day might help us all better understand Exxon’s crimes against humanity.

  28. Why is this news? AGU takes money from wherever it can get it, it has no principles. This is the same with pretty much every organisations whose principles and primary drivers are academic. In my view most academics are self-entitled, unprincipled leaches that will hang their knickers on anyone’s bed post so long as they can get some money from doing so. So it is hardly surprising that the organisation over-which they hold sway are unprincipled too.

Comments are closed.