EXXON KNEW! 34-Years Ago The Exxon Executives Knew That Burning Fossil Fuels Was Effecting Climate Change & Global Warming. Now We Have The Documents To Prove It! Exxon (Now ExxonMobil) Spent Million$ To Prevent The Planet From Doing Anything About It To MAXIMIZE Their Own Financial Profits – The Planet Be Damned! Does Any Of This Surprise You? Are Republican Apologists Listening?



Exxon Knew of Role of Fossil Fuel in Global Warming Decades Ago


A new report by Inside Climate News reveals how oil giant ExxonMobil’s own research confirmed the role of fossil fuels in global warming decades ago. By 1977, Exxon’s own senior experts had begun to warn the burning of fossil fuels could pose a threat to humanity. At first, Exxon launched an ambitious research program, outfitting a supertanker with instruments to study carbon dioxide in the air and ocean. But toward the end of the 1980s, Exxon changed course and shifted to the forefront of climate change denial. Since the 1990s, it has spent millions of dollars funding efforts to reject the science its own experts knew of decades ago. Scientist Richard Werthamer worked at Exxon from 1978 to 1983, where he supervised Exxon’s carbon dioxide program.


Richard Werthamer: “The implications of increasing carbon dioxide were not that significant for Exxon per se. They were significant because it implied dramatic changes in climate, and that could provoke very substantial legislative consequences that would impact Exxon’s business significantly. You know, if you think that burning fossil fuels is going to flood your cities, well, there’s going to be some national discussion about what to do about it, and one possibility is we’re going to have to burn fewer — less carbon-based fuels.”







A new report by InsideClimate News reveals how oil giant ExxonMobil’s own research confirmed the role of fossil fuels in global warming decades ago. By 1977, Exxon’s own senior experts had begun to warn the burning of fossil fuels could pose a threat to humanity. At first, Exxon launched an ambitious research program, outfitting a supertanker with instruments to study carbon dioxide in the air and ocean. But toward the end of the 1980s, Exxon changed course and shifted to the forefront of climate change denial. Since the 1990s, it has spent millions of dollars funding efforts to reject the science its own experts knew of decades ago.



This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.


NERMEEN SHAIKH: One major theme of Pope Francis’s visit to the U.S. is climate change. Since he issued his historic encyclical on the environment in June, Pope Francis has made his mark as a leading voice in the climate movement. He addressed the issue at the White House on Wednesday.


POPE FRANCIS: It seems clear to me also that climate change is a problem, which can no longer be left to a future generation. When it comes to the care of our “common home”, we are living at a critical moment of history.

Tabacco: I wonder if those GOP Presidential Wannabees are listening!


NERMEEN SHAIKH: But long before Pope Francis started his ascent through the ranks of the Catholic Church, there was another leader in the climate movement, and one you might least expect—Exxon. Now, ExxonMobil, the oil giant, is recognized by the environmental community as one of the worst offenders on environmental issues! Environmental disasters, from the 2013 Pegasus tar sands pipeline rupture to the 1989 Valdez oil spill, have made the company a leading target of environmentalists, as has its funding for climate change deniers and its backing of organizations, including the American Enterprise Institute and the American Legislative Exchange Council, known for opposing the Kyoto Protocol and other environmental regulations.


AMY GOODMAN: But a new investigative series by the Pulitzer Prize-winning news organization InsideClimate[News].org has uncovered that decades ago, Exxon was actually on the cutting edge of climate research. Here’s a clip from the PBS series Frontline, which partnered with InsideClimate News on the project.


NEELA BANERJEE: We found the trail of documents that go back to 1977. Exxon knew carbon dioxide was increasing in the atmosphere, that combustion of fossil fuel is driving it, and that this posed a threat to Exxon. At that time, Exxon understood very quickly that governments would probably take action to reduce fossil fuel consumption. They’re smart people, great scientists, and they saw the writing on the wall.


NARRATION: One Exxon research project outfitted an oil tanker with equipment to measure CO2 levels in the atmosphere and the ocean.


ED GARVEY: We were collecting data, the southern Atlantic, the Gulf of Mexico and the western Indian Ocean. Basically every hour, we would get several measurements. So we had—I called it a data monster.


NARRATION: Today Exxon says the study had nothing to do with CO2 emissions. But scientists involved remember it differently.


ED GARVEY: We were committed. We were doing some serious science. It was a significant budget, I would say on the scale of a million dollars a year. I mean, that was a lot of money in 1979.


AMY GOODMAN: That was Ed Garvey. From ’78 to ’83, he was a researcher at Exxon, where he helped start the company’s greenhouse gas research program. He’s now a technical vice president at the consulting firm Louis Berger, where he works on issues of environmental cleanup. Also with us is Neela Banerjee, Washington-based reporter for InsideClimate News, one of the reporters on this recent exposé on Exxon.


Welcome to Democracy Now! Neela, let’s start with you—why you did this series and what Exxon knew and when they knew it?


NEELA BANERJEE: We started looking into early climate change research and became aware that oil companies—at least initially, it was BP, but that was later, in the ’90s—had their own scientists who were looking into this. We then found out from American scientists, government scientists, who had been involved in climate research in the ’80s that Exxon was involved. And what ended up happening was that I got a transcript of a 1979 congressional hearing on climate change and tried to see if somebody from Exxon was there, and I found a gentleman named Henry Shaw. Henry was Ed’s boss and was the primary researcher with that tanker project. And through him and, you know, papers that he worked on, we found other names, we found documents in archives.


And slowly we amassed this picture of a company that was clearly aware of the science, of the emerging science of carbon dioxide research, and what the scientists were saying, that it was largely driven by fossil fuel emissions. And they were smart enough to know that this could mean some kind of policy response farther down the road. And so, to deal with that, they decided to take a constructive role, and that is to do really good science so that they would be taken seriously in any future policy discussion.


NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Ed Garvey, can you talk about when you first arrived at Exxon and the research that you did there? It’s an extraordinary finding. 1977, that’s almost 40 years ago that Exxon itself was aware of the climate impact of fossil fuel.


ED GARVEY: I was hired in 1978 by Henry Shaw specifically to begin the tanker study. He hired me explicitly—directly out of school. I was a 22-year-old chemical engineer, but he hired me directly out of school to begin to engineer, if you would, and design a system that could work on an oil tanker to study oceanic levels of CO2. The idea was to study what the ocean was doing in response to the atmosphere, so we could figure out where CO2 from fossil fuels was ending up.


AMY GOODMAN: And what did you find?


ED GARVEY: Well, we didn’t get that far along in terms of the data analysis. I mean, ultimately, we found—we estimated the amount of CO2 that was coming out of the oceans in the Equator. My thesis adviser at the time, Taro Takahashi, used that data, along with others, other data, to estimate the amount of absorption by the ocean in the poles, amount of degassing in the equatorial area. And together, he was able to estimate the carbon balance, if you would, around the ocean, the atmosphere and the biosphere.


NERMEEN SHAIKH: But why was Exxon—from what you understand, why was Exxon interested in doing this research then?


ED GARVEY: It was very much a—they saw it as a leadership role, in many respects. The goal was that if Exxon—given the importance of the problem, Exxon wanted to be at the table in terms of the discussion. The best way to be considered viable in terms of your opinion at the table was to be doing real research. And in fact, we linked up with some of the best researchers in the world at the time regarding CO2 and the global carbon cycle.


AMY GOODMAN: You were working with Columbia University?


ED GARVEY: That’s right, as well—


AMY GOODMAN: When—yes, go ahead.


ED GARVEY: As well as the Scripps Institution of Oceanography!


AMY GOODMAN: When did you start to feel a change in attitude at Exxon about the work you were doing?


ED GARVEY: For me, it came very suddenly toward the end of my career there. It was gung ho for three-and-a-half years, and then the bottom fell out of the oil market, and it really changed. They just basically dropped the project. We had collected a lot of data, but hadn’t processed it to the point of understanding the information. We just had a lot of information. Columbia went on to process the data after my work there.


AMY GOODMAN: Neela Banerjee, can you talk about this turnaround, when Exxon stopped the study, what they started to understand, and how they tried to cover it up?


NEELA BANERJEE: Well, when Ed’s project was dropped, from the documents we have and, you know, talking to Ed, too, it was mainly because of financial reasons. Exxon did not stop its climate research. After it started the tanker project in ’78, ’79, in 1980 it hired a lot of mathematicians to do climate modeling, because models were primitive and they were relying on other people’s models and they wanted to do that in-house. So, even though the tanker project, which was relatively expensive, had ended, Exxon continued very good, rigorous, peer-reviewed climate research, mainly through climate modeling, from 1980 onward. And our documents go through 1986. And one does not notice the kind of attitude shift that appeared in the 1990s, of stalling action on climate change and so on, in that period. Exxon was still committed to doing really good science. It was just different from the tanker project. If that was empirical, this was modeling.


And then, you know, the first indication that I think all of us—not just InsideClimate News, but the world—have of Exxon’s attitude on climate change shifting was in 1989 when a group called the Global Climate Coalition was formed. And that was a group of fossil fuel companies, major manufacturers, Americans largely, that wanted to stall action on climate change. They saw that the U.N. was meeting and thinking about a policy response that countries should adopt to cut emissions of carbon dioxide. So, what happened in that ’86-to-’89 period, we don’t know. You know, we can’t document a shift in thinking. There’s some speculation about the attitudes of the people who were in leadership then. They were different than the people who were in leadership in the ’70s. But what we have is not an example of a cover-up—it’s quite the opposite. What we have is an example of a company that used its resources as one of the biggest energy companies in the world to do really good research.


NERMEEN SHAIKH: Neela Banerjee, could you say a little more about this Global Climate Coalition and what Exxon’s role within it came to be and how it’s impacted the kind of research that’s done on climate change?


NEELA BANERJEE: Well, the Global Climate Coalition, I mean, it sounds very green. I remember thinking, “Oh, this must be a group of companies that actually support action on climate change.” But it was led mainly by the auto—I mean, I’m sorry, by the oil and gas industry, but some of the other members were coal companies, auto companies and so on. And Exxon was probably the leader in the oil industry, working with the American Petroleum Institute, which is the main oil industry lobby.


And they didn’t take the approach that a lot of people who denied climate change did. And in fact, there’s in public circulation, long before we did this project, a primer that a scientist had written for members about how to talk about climate change. What he recommended was not to use the arguments that other climate deniers use, such as, you know, that it’s sunspots or natural cycles, but instead to focus on the uncertainty of the science and the models, just to hammer away at that. And indeed, people who met Exxon representatives at U.N. conferences and other climate conferences didn’t see them as sort of out-and-out deniers. Instead, they said, you know, Exxon just focused on the uncertainty of the science and used that as a way to seed doubt about the process. So that affects public opinion.


But also Exxon and others funded an infrastructure of think tanks and scientists and others who created—who issued reports and did studies that also spread doubt about climate change. And that provided the fodder for companies such as Exxon and also for policymakers to say, “Look, you know, here are these credible institutions issuing these reports. There is no consensus on climate change,” which is—what’s so unusual or sort of stark about that, now that we have these documents, is that Exxon in the ’80s was talking about a consensus among scientists about climate change and fossil fuels, and, you know, 10, 15, 20 years later, they were saying the exact opposite.


AMY GOODMAN: And, Ed Garvey, as Exxon started funding these climate denier groups, your thoughts, as we wrap up?


ED GARVEY: I just think it was an opportunity that was missed, that having developed this knowledge in-house, Exxon was in position to lead the discussion as how to deal with the problem, and instead they really chose to deny the problem. And I think that was really a missed opportunity.


AMY GOODMAN: And, Neela Banerjee, the chief executives at Exxon who became the climate deniers?


NEELA BANERJEE: Well, we don’t know what their original thinking was, but we do know that Lee Raymond, who became chairman and CEO and made seminal speeches denying climate change, was exposed to thinking about CO2 and how it affected Exxon’s business projects, including the decision to delay action on a major gas field that Exxon had picked up the rights to develop in the 1980s. So, it wasn’t that these men were ignorant of the science, but, you know, what their attitudes were when they were exposed to it, whether there was actually any kind of shift, whether it was natural or calculated, we don’t know.


AMY GOODMAN: Neela, we’re going to have to leave it there, but we’ll continue the discussion. Neela Banerjee with the Pulitzer Prize-winning InsideClimate News, and Ed Garvey. We’ll link to your exposé at democracynow.org. Of course, we’ll continue to cover the pope’s trip through the United States.


Exxon Confirmed Global Warming Consensus in 1982 with In-House Climate Models


The company chairman would later mock climate models as unreliable while he campaigned to stop global action to reduce fossil fuel emissions.


Lisa Song, Neela Banerjee, David Hasemyer

Sep 22, 2015


In 1982, Exxon scientist Andrew Callegari put together a presentation on Exxon modeling results including the chart pictured here.


Steve Knisely was an intern at Exxon Research and Engineering in the summer of 1979 when a vice president asked him to analyze how global warming might affect fuel use.


“I think this guy was looking for validation that the greenhouse effect should spur some investment in alternative energy that’s not bad for the environment”, Knisely, now 58 and a partner in a management consulting company, recalled in a recent interview.


Knisely projected that unless fossil fuel use was constrained, there would be “noticeable temperature changes” and 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air by 2010, up from about 280 ppm before the Industrial Revolution. The summer intern’s predictions turned out to be very close to the mark.


Knisely even concluded that the fossil fuel industry might need to leave 80 percent of its recoverable reserves in the ground to avoid doubling CO2 concentrations, a notion now known as the carbon budget. In 2013, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change formally endorsed the idea.


“The potential problem is great and urgent”, Knisely wrote. “Too little is known at this time to recommend a major U.S. or worldwide change in energy type usage but it is very clear that immediate research is necessary”.


The report, which circulated within the company through the early 1980s, reflected Exxon’s growing need to understand when the climate implications of increased CO2 emissions would begin to spur policy changes.


So Exxon (now ExxonMobil) shelved an ambitious but costly program that sampled carbon dioxide in the oceans—the centerpiece of its climate research in the 1970s—as it created its own computerized climate models. The models aimed to simulate how the planet’s climate system would react to rising CO2 levels, relying on a combination of mathematics, physics, and atmospheric science.


Through much of the 1980s, Exxon researchers worked alongside university and government scientists to generate objective climate models that yielded papers published in peer-reviewed journals. Their work confirmed the emerging scientific consensus on global warming’s risks.


Yet starting in 1989, Exxon leaders went down a different road. They repeatedly argued that the uncertainty inherent in computer models makes them useless for important policy decisions. Even as the models grew more powerful and reliable, Exxon publicly derided the type of work its own scientists had done. The company continued its involvement with climate research, but its reputation for objectivity began to erode as it campaigned internationally to cast doubt on the science.


This eight-month InsideClimate News investigation details Exxon’s early research into global warming, based on hundreds of pages of internal documents and interviews with former employees and scientists. The company declined to provide comment or answer questions for this article.


Brian Flannery. (Credit: © Academia Engelberg Foundation)


One scientist who crossed over from academia to Exxon Research was Brian Flannery, an associate professor of astronomy from Harvard and an expert in mathematical modeling. Flannery joined the company in 1980. At about the same time, Exxon hired Andrew Callegari, a mathematics professor at New York University. When the company shifted its focus to modeling in 1981, Callegari became head of the company’s CO2 research, replacing Henry Shaw, who had steered the ocean sampling project.


Callegari approached Martin Hoffert, an old colleague at NYU, to work with the Exxon team as a consultant on modeling. Hoffert jumped at the chance. He was already deeply concerned about the consequences of atmospheric carbon and saw the opportunity as an “all hands on deck” approach to heading off an environmental disaster.


“We were all interested as geek scientists at the time”, Hoffert, who is now retired, recalled in a recent interview. “There were no divisions, no agendas”.


Flannery and Callegari were “very legitimate research guys”, Hoffert said. “We talked about the politics of this stuff a lot, but we always separated the politics from the science”.


Climate ‘Catastrophe’ Foreseen


By 1981, Exxon scientists were no longer questioning whether the buildup of CO2 would cause the world to heat up. Through their own studies and their participation in government-sponsored conferences, company researchers had concluded that rising CO2 levels could create catastrophic impacts within the first half of the 21st century if the burning of oil, gas and coal wasn’t contained.


A chart showing the increase in the growth rate of carbon dioxide measurements in Hawaii. Exxon scientists shared this chart in their documents discussing the company’s climate modeling efforts.


“When I arrived there, I was quite surprised to discover that people in the research lab were very aware of the increase in the growth rate of carbon dioxide measurements in Hawaii [at the Mauna Loa observatory],” Morrel H. Cohen, a senior scientist at Exxon Research from 1981 to 1996, said in a recent interview. “They were very aware of the greenhouse effect”.


As the researchers alerted Exxon’s upper management about the CO2 problem, the scientists worked to provide better estimates of when the warming trend would create noticeable damage, and how large the impacts might be.


One scientist, Werner Glass, wrote an analysis in 1981 for a senior vice president that said the rise in global temperatures would begin to be noticed in a few decades. But Glass hedged his bet, saying the magnitude of the change would be “well short of catastrophic” in the early years.


Exxon manager Roger Cohen saw things differently.


“I think that this statement may be too reassuring”, Cohen, director of the Theoretical and Mathematical Sciences Laboratory at Exxon Research, wrote in an August 18, 1981 memo to Glass.

He called it “distinctly possible” that the projected warming trend after 2030 “will indeed be catastrophic (at least for a substantial fraction of the earth’s population)”.


Cohen continued: “This is because the global ecosystem in 2030 might still be in a transient, headed for much significant effects after time lags perhaps of the order of decades”.


Cohen demonstrated a sophisticated understanding of the climate system. He recognized that even if the impacts were modest in 2030, the world would have locked in enough CO2 emissions to ensure more severe consequences in subsequent decades. By 2030, he warned, the damage could be irreversible.


Unanimous Agreement


“Over the past several years a clear scientific consensus has emerged regarding the expected climatic effects of increased atmospheric CO2“, Cohen wrote to A.M. Natkin of Exxon Corporation’s Science and Technology Office in 1982. “The consensus is that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from its pre-industrial revolution value would result in an average global temperature rise of (3.0 ± 1.5)°C.” (Equal to 5.4 ± 2.7°F).


“There is unanimous agreement in the scientific community that a temperature increase of this magnitude would bring about significant changes in the earth’s climate, including rainfall distribution and alterations in the biosphere.”


Exxon’s own modeling research confirmed this and the company’s results were later published in at least three peer-reviewed science articles. Two of them were co-authored by Hoffert, and a third was written entirely by Flannery.


Exxon’s modeling experts also explained away the less-dire predictions of a 1979 study led by Reginald Newell, a prominent atmospheric scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Newell’s model projected that the effects of climate change would not be as severe as most scientists were predicting.


Specifically, Newell and a co-author from the Air Force named Thomas Dopplick challenged the prevailing view that a doubling of the earth’s CO2 blanket would raise temperatures about 3°C (5°F)– a measure known as climate sensitivity. Instead, they said the earth’s true climate sensitivity was roughly less than 1°C (2°F).


They based their results on a mechanism called “evaporative buffering,” in which excess warming at the equator causes increased evaporation, cooling the planet in the same way that perspiration cools a marathon runner.


Exxon’s research team disagreed. Even if the mechanism cooled the equator, the worldwide warming would still be higher, they found, according to the researchers’ peer-reviewed studies.


“In summary, the results of our research are in accord with the scientific consensus on the effect of increased atmospheric CO2 on climate”, Cohen wrote in the 1982 letter he sent to Natkin.


Martin Hoffert (Credit: NASA)


Exxon’s science turned out to be spot on, and the company’s early modeling projections still hold up more than 30 years later, Hoffert said in an email to InsideClimate News. The Arctic’s rapid warming and the extreme vulnerability of Antarctica’s ice sheets are “consistent with the results of our theory which predicted them before they happened”, Hoffert wrote.


Exxon “should be taking credit for their role in developing useful model predictions of the pattern of global warming by their research guys, as opposed to their denialist lobbyists saying global warming from fossil fuel burning doesn’t exist or is at best ‘unproven’”, he wrote.


Spreading the Word, Internally


The conclusions of Exxon’s climate modeling were being circulated broadly within the company in the 1980s.


Marvin B. Glaser, an Environmental Affairs Manager at Exxon, distributed a 43-page primer on climate change on Nov. 12, 1982.


In a cover letter to 15 Exxon executives and managers, Glaser said the document provided guidance “on the CO2 ’Greenhouse’ Effect which is receiving increased attention in both the scientific and popular press as an emerging environmental issue.” He continued: “The material has been given wide circulation to Exxon management and is intended to familiarize Exxon personnel with the subject”.


“However, it should be restricted to Exxon personnel and not distributed externally”, he wrote.


Glaser’s primer drew from the best research of the time, including Exxon’s, to explain how global temperatures would rise considerably by the end of the 21st century. Because of the warming, “there are some potentially catastrophic events that must be considered,” including sea level rise from melting polar ice sheets, according to the document. It noted that some scientific groups were concerned “that once the effects are measurable, they might not be reversible”.


Reining in “the greenhouse effect”, the primer said, “would require major reductions in fossil fuel combustion”.


Yet the report also argued against a rapid shift to non-fossil fuel energy sources, noting that “making significant changes in energy consumption…amid all the scientific uncertainties would be premature in view of the severe impact such moves could have on the world’s economies and societies”.


Exxon’s reputation for conducting serious carbon dioxide research was growing outside the company. Its scientists were frequent participants on industry and government panels.


Click To Enlarge

Flannery, for example, contributed to a multi-volume series of Energy Department reports published in 1985 on the state of climate change science. It concluded that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations had already increased by about 25 percent in the past century, and continued use of fossil fuels would lead to substantial temperature increases in the future.


Flannery was the only industry representative among 15 scientists who wrote the volume titled “Projecting the Climatic Effects of Increasing Carbon Dioxide”.


Hoffert and Flannery co-authored a chapter that concluded that since the Industrial Revolution the Earth would warm 1°C (or 2°F) by 2000 and rise another 2 to 5°C (4 to 9°F) over the next hundred years.


As it turned out, the world’s temperature has risen about 0.8°C (1.4°F) and mainstream scientists continue to predict, with increasing urgency, that if emissions are not curtailed, carbon pollution would lock in warming of as much as 3 to 6°C (or 5 to 11°F) over the next several decades.


Quantifying the Uncertainty


Throughout its climate-modeling phase, Exxon researchers, like outside scientists, grappled with the uncertainties inherent in climate model projections.


“Models are being used to explore physical effects (scenarios) and as a predictive tool,” Andrew Callegari said in a Feb. 2, 1984 presentation for colleagues. The “validity of models [are] not established,” Callegari wrote. “Complexity of carbon cycle and climate system require many approximations”.


Scientists, regulators and Exxon all had to ask themselves: what should be done, given that uncertainty? Should governments and corporations wait for the ambiguities to be resolved before acting to cut fossil fuel emissions? Or should the researchers recommend immediate action because of a preponderance of evidence?


Since then, modeling has become an increasingly useful and reliable tool. The IPCC, the United Nations institution that compiles the scientific consensus on global warming, has issued a series of reports since 1990 based on those models. Each report has grown more certain. By the fifth report in 2013, the IPCC said it was “extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century”.


Click to Enlarge


As the consensus grew within the scientific world, Exxon doubled down on the uncertainty. Its campaign to muddy research results placed the company outside the scientific mainstream. Some of the researchers who once led the company’s modeling became vocal climate contrarians, among them Brian Flannery and Roger Cohen.


Flannery survived the lay-offs of the mid-1980s that decimated the Exxon Research staff and rose in the corporate ranks to become the company’s chief scientist. He attended IPCC meetings from the outset and by the early 1990s, he emerged as a prominent skeptic of the science he had once conducted. 


For example, in a 1999 paper based on a speech to Exxon’s European affiliates, Flannery derided the second IPCC assessment that concluded in 1995 that the scientific evidence suggested “a discernible human influence on climate”.


“You’ll note that this is a very carefully worded statement, recognizing that the jury is still out, especially on any quantifiable connection to human actions,” Flannery wrote. “The conclusion does not refer to global warming from increases in greenhouse gases. Indeed, many scientists say that a great deal of uncertainty still needs to be resolved”.


The change in Cohen’s thinking was also stark, as he acknowledged in 2008. While still at Exxon he was “well convinced, as were most technically trained people, that the IPCC’s case for Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is very tight.” But he wrote in a 2008 essay for the Science and Public Policy Institute, a climate denial website, that upon closer inspection of the research he found it to be “flimsy”.


In 2007, the American Physical Society, the country’s largest organization of physicists, adopted a strong statement on climate change that said “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring”.


Cohen, an APS fellow, helped lead a campaign to weaken the APS’s official position and earlier this year succeeded in stripping out the word ‘incontrovertible’ from a draft text. APS members will vote on the final language in November.


Flannery and Cohen declined to comment, despite multiple requests.


Exxon’s former chairman and CEO, Lee Raymond, took an even tougher line against climate science. Speaking before the World Petroleum Congress in Beijing in 1997, Raymond mocked climate models in an effort to stop the imminent adoption of the Kyoto Protocol, an international accord to reduce emissions.


“They are notoriously inaccurate”, Raymond said. “1990′s models were predicting temperature increases of two to five degrees Celsius by the year 2100″, he said, without explaining the source of those numbers. “Last year’s models say one to three degrees. Where to next year?”


Part IV, coming soon: The carbon problem begins to influence business decisions.


ICN staff members Zahra Hirji, Paul Horn, Naveena Sadasivam, Sabrina Shankman and Alexander Wood also contributed to this report.


Correction 9/22: An earlier version of this article misstated the rank of an Exxon official who ordered the fuel use report written by Steve Knisely, an intern at the company, in 1979. He was a vice president of Exxon Research & Engineering, not a senior vice president at Exxon Corporation.

Tabacco: When you know something, NEGATIVE to you, is TRUE, and you DENY that something is TRUE, then PAY OTHERS to DENY that something too, you are a LIAR!


When Corporations LIE in this manner and for these Reasons, there should be a Criminal/Civil Federal Law, which would fine these Vermin out of Business and send the Guilty Executives to Prison for DECADES!


You’ve read the Facts! Now, are you surprised?

Tabacco: I consider myself both a funnel and a filter. I funnel information, not readily available on the Mass Media, which is ignored and/or suppressed. I filter out the irrelevancies and trivialities to save both the time and effort of my Readers and bring consternation to the enemies of Truth & Fairness! When you read Tabacco, if you don’t learn something NEW, I’ve wasted your time.



If Tabacco is talking about a subject that nobody else is discussing, it means that subject is more, not less important, and the Powers-That-Be are deliberately avoiding that Issue. To presume otherwise completely defeats my purpose in blogging.



Tabacco is not a blogger, who thinks; I am a Thinker, who blogs. Speaking Truth to Power!


In 1981′s ‘Body Heat’, Kathleen Turner said, “Knowledge is power”.

T.A.B.A.C.C.O.  (Truth About Business And Congressional Crimes Organization) – Think Tank For Other 95% Of World: WTP = We The People


To Read Comments On This Post, Go To:



To Go To The Tabacco Main Page

Listing All Posts, Go To:



To Read Posts On My Wyandanch Blog, Go To

Wyandanch Main Page:


Subdomain re Exploited Minority Long Island community








Anyone may Comment here, but if you want your Comment published, you must obey the TABACCO RULES as stipulated in:


TABACCO’S RULES OF ENGAGEMENT! Most Comments Here Don’t Get Published. This Post Is Not Aimed At Those Charlatans; It is Intended To Edify My Veto Stance To The Intellectually Honest Readers Among You.



Because of Spam, Capitalists attempting to gain Free Advertising on my Blogs and other irrelevancies, Tabacco no longer reads Comments on Posts.


Relevant Post or Post URL must appear as e-mail SUBJECT!


To register a Comment, e-mail Tabacco at:






This entry was posted in Bush, class war, compromise, Democrats, deregulation, disaster capitalism, GOP, hypocrisy, illicit drugs, knowledge is power, Obama, outsourcing, political ping pong, Politics, Republicans, socialism4richcapitalism4poor, sophistry, takebackamerica, warpeace and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>