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 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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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.
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.
Always good to see a grand conspiracy theory.
This affects all of academia, all countries, and all academic journals does it?
Another mindless opinion from ‘Seth’, who obviously didn’t read the Lindzen reference.
Good little eco-lemming. Good boy.
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.
we have our ways for making you talk
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?
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.
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?
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.
It’s a lot easier to demand that others make sacrifices, than it is to make those sacrifices yourself.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.