"Exxon Mobil Pays to Mislead Public"

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by spork183, Jan 3, 2007.

  1. spork183 macrumors 6502a

    spork183

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2006
    #1
    http://www.physorg.com/news87058248.html

    Don't know whether to be disturbed they did it, or amazed they only spent 16mil when their profits were so bloody bloated. My only consolation is Pres. Bush's reassurance that his intuition tells him that I'm not being scalped at the pump.
     
  2. kalisphoenix macrumors 65816

    kalisphoenix

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    #2
    The annoying and depressing thing is that it seems to have worked on so many idi... people.
     
  3. spork183 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    spork183

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2006
    #3
    the word you were looking for was... idealogies?
     
  4. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #4
    Interesting wording. I wonder how much money McDonalds and Coca Cola spent in a coordinated effort to misled people into thinking that their products tasted good or were necessary to live.
     
  5. spork183 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    spork183

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2006
    #6
  6. kalisphoenix macrumors 65816

    kalisphoenix

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    #7
    What's interesting about the wording? Are you implying that that the correlation between oil industry-funded "think tanks" and dissent against the global warming hypothesis is anything other than 1:1? Like all those scientists with no connection to big tobacco who said that nicotine wasn't addictive? Or the fact that everyone who believes in "Intelligent Design" seems to be a raging bible thumper? Or the fact that Microsoft-funded studies seem to think that Microsoft systems have a lower TCO than Linux systems?
     
  7. spork183 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    spork183

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2006
    #8
    Hey, I believed that one-
     
  8. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #9
    That article confuses me - first it claims $16m, then $6.8m. Either way, that is a small percentage compared to the $133m total distributed. Also, the article doesn't make clear if the $6.3 was the total in the category or the amount to groups of that type, who made up only a portion of the category.

    Additionally, what do you expect them to do? Science isn't perfect and the theory is one they would like, why wouldn't they investigate further? Wouldn't you dump a few bucks into researching a theory that, if true, would significantly increase your salary?

    I am concerned if they are publishing their own reports or paying for conclusions a la tobacco, but from what I see, they are simply funding. How is that the same?
     
  9. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #10
    Did you honestly read the nbs2? The problem has nothing to do with putting money into scientific research. The problem is that they are putting millions into groups whose primary aim is to obfuscate and misrepresent the science to the public.

    They use methods much like your paragraph with spin like 'science isn't perfect' and 'theory' and 'investigate further' to create the illusion of reasonable doubt and ongoing debate in the scientific community.
     
  10. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #11
    Caught red-handed, nbs2. Now we know how you were able to buy the better digital SLR. "My wife won a D50 in a contest!" Suuuuuure she did. ;)
     
  11. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #12
    You didn't read it very carefully.

    A lot of those thinktanks are extremely partisan. Whether EM publishes its own reports or pays some extremist hacks to do so is a moot point.
     
  12. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #13
    Are you saying this is anything like that?

    Seriously?
     
  13. Daveway macrumors 68040

    Daveway

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Location:
    New Orleans / Lafayette, La
    #14
    As a stock holder, I congratulate them on trying to protect the company from the onslaught of competition; however, this is just ethically wrong to deceive the American people on such a sensitive issue.
     
  14. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #15
    They're funding groups who have an obvious and partisan objective to distort the argument about global warming. This isn't research.

    Rather than honestly dealing with a real and possible problem—and then making smart investments in new technologies, or even (gasp!) renewables—they're spending money to oppose honest scientific research. It's not only wrong, it's foolhardy and stockholders should punish such short-sightedness.
     
  15. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #16
    So if George Soros goes around funding studies that all magically support the hypothesis "Republicans found to be bad for your health" or "tax cuts hurt economy", you'd be cool with that nbs2? Somehow I think you'd be singing a different tune...
     
  16. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #17
    Nope - if sponsoring a group that promotes his ideals is what he believes will help his agenda, then he should go for it. Just as in this case, if the folks he sponsors are nutbags, his money is wasted; if they present their arguments with sanity, the waste is debatable.

    Perhaps. But, I would enjoy learning a bit more about what "other groups" entails. I would also like to know what EM defines as policy research. If I was writing that, I would include groups that study effective policies and how opinion is shaped by a given policy, the better to adjust mine to minimize negative exposure while maintaining my present course of conduct.

    Re-reading the article, I am even more confused. If 43 ideological groups got $16m over 7 years (about $2m/year), then does that mean that the other ~100 groups that split (what was left of) the $6.8m this year are not ideological? And what was the other $126m spent on?

    I'm not denying that EM may have been sketchy, just that when an ideological group reelases a story, I prefer to get more info before committing myself. I mean, what if EM had posted a press release stating the opposite? How many of you would have changed your tunes of acceptance?

    GAA!! You caught me. I'm on the EM payroll...:D
     
  17. spork183 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    spork183

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2006
    #18
    Do you seriously believe that EM wouldn't have buried it so deep it never saw the light of day? This is only about supporting science that furthers EM's idealogy. That, to me, is faulty science. The entire point of scientific exploration is to formulate a hypothesis and try to prove or disprove it. EM's approach is to formulate a hypothesis and prove it.

    It isn't like they will change their business model based on learning that science doesn't support their position.
     
  18. zap2 macrumors 604

    zap2

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Washington D.C
    #19

    They should have to use any on me...I love me a Big Mac!!! and with a Sprite !! Yum!
     
  19. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #20
    From the dupe thread's Yahoo news:

    "ExxonMobil lists on its Web site nearly $133 million in 2005 contributions globally, including $6.8 million for "public information and policy research" distributed to more than 140 think-tanks, universities, foundations, associations and other groups. Some of those have publicly disputed the link between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming."

    "Some" of 140 have disputed. That would mean some have supported. And 43 ideological groups out of 140? Hardly a majority, even in these days of strange math.

    "But in September, the company said in response to the Royal Society that it funded groups which research "significant policy issues and promote informed discussion on issues of direct relevance to the company." It said the groups do not speak for the company."

    It actually would be more accurate, given the available information, to say that EM gave most of the $6.8 million to entities which support the link between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. That's if one is to give more weight to a majority of recipients than a minority.

    'Rat
     

Share This Page