Tim Worstall

Hmmm, free speech comes with reponsibilities. The liberty of citizens to own or work for oil companies should not excuse the industrial promulgation of lies and antiscience. Exxon do indeed seem to be keeping some dodgy company. There is a big debate going on, and exxon have the resources to contribute – perhaps they could raise their standards.

Adam Jackson

Doesn’t seem like he is asking for anything that unreasonable:
“In the letter, Bob Ward of the Royal Society writes: “At our meeting in July … you indicated that ExxonMobil would not be providing any further funding to these organisations. I would be grateful if you could let me know when ExxonMobil plans to carry out this pledge.””
I wouldn’t back Iran’s President’s statements denying the Holocaust was as serious as Western evidence suggests because they have a strong ideological, political and economic bias to them. Likewise with Exxon.

Pete D.

Why should Exxon-Mobil withdraw their funding? Maybe the Government should withdraw all funding for science research as well. Hmmmm, what would happen then?

A collection of elite scientists challenging a company to stop misleading the public about science as part of its efforts to externalise its costs? Outrageous!

JuliaM

Don’t Exxon realise that, by funding ‘propaganda’ about climate change, they are stepping on scientists’ turf…?
It’s like the Mafia & the Triads arguing over a particularly juicy scam.
Can’t they both lose..?

Umbongo

Lord May (ex Pres of the Royal Society) on “Today” this morning was more or less accusing Exxon of criminality because “everybody” knows that climate change is 100% anthropogenic. Maybe he’s right, maybe he’s wrong but, even granting that climate change is occurring (when didn’t it?), the reasons why and what to do about it are not cast iron “facts”, they are matters of opinion. That “Adam Jackson” in this thread apparently equates the “fact” of the Holocaust with the so-called “facts” of climate change causation and investigation is not only disgusting but exhibits his and Bob Ward’s pre-Enlightenment commitment to burning heretics rather than accepting that they might, just might be right.

Jim

“A leading scientific body is so unsure of its ability to win the argument upon the evidence”
I think their point is that Exxon and its mouthpieces aren’t basing their arguments on the evidence.

KLM

I wouldn’t back Iran’s President’s statements denying the Holocaust was as serious as Western evidence suggests because they have a strong ideological, political and economic bias to them.
The first sentence of this comment is very interesting. It would be more elegant to write
I wouldn’t back Iran’s President’s statements denying the Holocaust because ….
Why would he put in the clause “was as serious as Western evidence suggests”?
It’s not as if there isn’t copious evidence that he explicitly called it a myth without any qualifying less “serious”.
The horror of the Holocaust lies not in whether the numbers were exactly 6 million, as in that a serious attempt was made using industrial methods to exterminate the entire European Jewish population. To say the crime was a “myth”, we wouldn’t be arguing about whether the numbers were 4 million or 5 million, we would have to argue that no systematic attempt was ever made to exterminate the Jews.
President Ahmadinejad made himself clear: “Today, they have created a myth in the name of Holocaust and consider it to be above God, religion and the prophets.”
I wonder if your commentator’s attempt to whitewash the President’s remarks reveal something about his ideological bias?

fermat

I trust that the Royal Society will soon replace their Senior Manager, Policy Communication. With someone who understands the scientific process. Scientific discoveries are made by those who challenge the received wisdom; to pick a few names at random : Copernicus, Galileo, Einstein …
Scientific consensus in the late 19th century – physics is almost complete; a few loose ends to tidy up, and then all that remains is to make the measurements more accurate.
Often the mavericks are barking, but when they get it right they demonstrate that the prior mutual congratulations among the cognoscenti were just the echoes of minds slamming shut.

What you are forgetting, “fermat”, is that regardless of the foundational questions posed by Quantum Theory and Relativity, the 19th century scientific consensus was nonetheless capable of accurate prediction in almost all situations. That’s why it was the consensus. That’s why Newtonian mechanics and Maxwell’s laws are still used today. Your comparison with that period is therefore entirely fatuous.
Secondly, the challenge of the consensus in the specific cases you cite did not come from profit-motivated corporate propagandising. In the first two, resistance came from religion, not from any scientific establishment; in the third, as soon as Relativity’s superior predictive power was demonstrated it became the consensus.
To compare geniuses like Galileo and Einstein with Exxon-funded corporate shills is absurd and insulting.

Bishop Hill

What you are forgetting, “fermat”, is that regardless of the foundational questions posed by Quantum Theory and Relativity, the 19th century scientific consensus was nonetheless capable of accurate prediction in almost all situations.
I haven’t followed the climate “debate” for some time, but last I heard the climate models were not capable of reproducing the historic climate and could not therefore be presumed to be capable of accurate prediction.

Bishop Hill

Presumably these guys are all corporate shills too?

StuartA

I did not suggest that the current climate models could predict accurately, BH. I said that the analogical argument made by “fermat” was idiotic. My point was precisely that the situations he sought to compare were not comparable. Even if what you “heard” were true, it would have little bearing on this; and its only applicability would lie in strengthening my case.
Nor did I say that those seeking to challenge the consensus were all corporate shills. This posting was about Exxon’s entitlement, in Worstall World, to fund propagandists on account of the great inalienable rights of shareholders to skew public opinion in favour of pollution. There was no mention of your “60 expert scientists”. I assumed that “fermat” was referring to topic of the posting. If he wasn’t, then what he said was irrelevant as well as ignorant. Certainly what you have to say has no relation to the subject at hand.

Bostonian

“free speech comes with reponsibilities.”
You must be a Progressive ™. I wonder if you realize that your position requires some arbiter to decide what is fair and what is not–and just who would you put into that role? Progressives like yourself, no doubt.
I’m so glad I live in a country with the First Amendment, even as corroded as it has been.

dsquared

yes, Time, you’re right, it does indeed look like you’re talking your own book.

Peter D.

The Left always go on about “stifling dissent”. But when the chips are down we know which side are the keenest on shutting up their opponents, by fair means or foul.
If Exxon want to waste their money backing the losing side of the argument, why shouldn’t they be allowed to do so. If their case is so easily refutable, then surely the “consensus” has nothing to fear.

Firstly, the Royal Society is not “The Left” — it’s a collection of the country’s top scientists. The idea that this body, or the Left, has the power to “stifle” the dissent of a multi-billion dollar multinational is ludicrous.
Secondly, Exxon are “allowed” to spend their money promoting carbon dioxide emissions. The RS haven’t somehow passed a law to prevent them doing this. Rather, they wrote them a letter asking when they would stop.
Thirdly, scientists have nothing to fear from debate provided it is founded on disinterested analysis of evidence. Since the CEI and others have demonstrably misrepresented research, their commitment to evidence-based argument is in doubt. They may well be able to mislead a public not acquainted with the facts.
The persistent attempt here to present junk-science advertising campaigns, conducted by unqualified PR organisations in the short term interest of oil companies, as brave truth-telling at risk of brutal suppression by an all-powerful scientific or left-wing establishment is beyond absurd.

Bostonian

September 22, 2006

Stuart,
How disingenous of you.
Nobody said anything about brutality . Nor bravery.
The Royal Society asked people with whom they disagree to shut up, and the appropriate answer to that is, as Tim Worstall already said, Fuck you sunshine.

dsquared

September 22, 2006

[the appropriate answer to that is, as Tim Worstall already said, Fuck you sunshine.]
not really; since Exxon presumably has some material interest in not being a bunch of anti-science rubes and since they will eventually have to give up anyway, the appropriate answer is “sorry Sir we’ll try not to do it again”.

September 22, 2006

I fail to see how it is “disingenuous” to respond to what “fermat” said. He compared Exxon’s PR campaigners to Galileo, whose views were subject to brutal suppression. If you accept that there is indeed no comparison with Galileo then you agree with me that “fermat” was talking nonsense.
Whether or not Worstall’s vicarious amour propre on behalf of downtrodden shareholders is appropriate is another matter. Personally I think it’s infantile.

MikeinAppalachia

September 23, 2006

Stuart-
“Since the CEI and others have demonstrably misrepresented research, their commitment to evidence-based argument is in doubt.”
Example(s)?
I can’t claim to have reviewed all of the outputs of CEI, et al, but I have yet to find any “misrepresented research,” featured. To what are you refferring?

StuartA

September 23, 2006

See http://unspeak.net/we-call-it-life/

MikeinAppalachia

September 24, 2006

StuartA.
OK-looked at that site-going to assume you are serious and merely say that the material presented does nothing to show that the CEI releases are “lies”. I’ve read the full articles/papers that are cited-CEI’s citations are accurate, and IMO, MUCH less misleading than the typoical output of Mr. Gore and/or IPCC, Mann (especially), and his ilk. Ice in the interior of Greenland and in MOST of the land mass at the S. Pole is growing. Yes, no one knows if that balance is +/-, and the authors state that in both cases-but the CEI articles are accurate. Not so with Mr. Gore’s movie. BTW-one receding glacier in Greenland has exposed Viking artifacts. Must have been their SUV’s and power plants that caused the last withdrawal? Meanwhile, sea level continues to rise at it’s threatening 7mm/year rate. Just as it has for a LONG TIME. Also, where I live, US NOAA’s projected annual mean temperature projection, based upon 1890-2005 records, is +1.7 degrees F per DECADE. And the warmest year is still in the 1930’s. But, I’m told, the monitoring stations are to be replaced and moved into the larger Cities where they will then conform to “what everyone knows”. Maybe I can get an injunction vs. NOAA to keep them from publishing their year-year temperature data, since it kinda refutes “facts”? Have a GREAT DAY!