# Big Oil are not Climate Change Denialists **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 3, 2014, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303 "2014-07-03T21:32:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2014, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/121 "2014-07-05T21:56:06Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > There’s obviously a balance to be struck between cat-videos and people that barely post anything but links to other person’s arguments. This is a Great Debate forum, what would happen in an actual debate if you refused to answer questions and just told the moderators to read entries in the encyclopedia or read through some peer reviewed articles you brought with you? GIGO pretty much always provides framing, a detailed quote and a link. I agree that pairing a statement with a you tube vid asks too much of the reader. But GIGO doesn’t do that. He’s an addition to this board. > [@wolfpup](#): > > Excellent points and I agree with all of them, including the defense of Exxon’s management style. Their ability to manage oil production is, however, not really pertinent to a discussion about their notorious history of denialist lobbying efforts, especially back in the Raymond days, but also much more recently, as per some of the info I’ve posted. Strawman arguments such as the following make it relevant: > [@Martin Hyde](#): > > But it’s interesting how quickly the SDMB just ignores what people says and attacks the argument they wish someone had made. You guys want **LonghornDave** to basically _be_ this evil Exxon guy who hates the environment and denies global warming. Partly accurate, part fantasy. I don’t have a problem with most Exxon employees, even those who do a number on the environment. I do have a problem with secretly bending the rules in your favor. I do have a problem with securing billions of dollars of federal tax breaks and subsidies and Exxon shareholders with a diversified portfolio should have a problem with that as well. But that sort of activity is way above the pay grade of 99% of their employees. [hijack]We’re on page 3, so I’ll go off track a little. What _should_ smart shareholders with a highly diversified portfolio tell Exxon to do? Say they own an SP500 fund. Well they stop them from most lobbying: cozy deals from big guv tend to rob from service firms like Microsoft, Oracle or even Apple to pay for capital intensive firms like GE or Exxon. At the very least, lobbying should be transparent so it can be evaluated by the shareholders. More generally, Exxon needs to manage its rise and inevitable fall: they _are_ in an extractive industry after all. Some of their skills could be applied geothermal, but it’s by no means clear that this will represent but a shadow of oil and natural gas. Another emerging tech might involve refining biofuels I suppose. At any rate, such decisions will be made far in the future. [/hijack] ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2014, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/122 "2014-07-05T22:11:36Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Just the answer that is expected from the one that was demonstrated to be wrong on what most scientists agree, you go for the ad hominem and show all how you are fleeing from dealing with the cite; you know, I just smack my face when I’m grossly wrong about beer, and I said then that I learned the lesson and stopped making dumb declarations about Guinness coming originally from England. This is hilarious. You actually think that the issues surrounding climate science are as straightforward an unambiguous as the simple factual matter of Guinness being from Ireland. And, lo, GIGO is a fair-minded chap, after all he admitted being wrong. True, he had to because it was a simple matter of fact that anyone could look up in 5 seconds, or by just picking up a can, but let this be evidence for his princely fairness and detached objectiveness. HA! Or did you intend this post of yours to appear in T_he Onion_? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2014, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/123 "2014-07-05T22:14:18Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > GIGO pretty much always provides framing, a detailed quote and a link. This is not my impression at all. In fact, next to BrainGlutton, he is the poster most guilty of responding with a link and not much, if anything, else. So much so that one poster thought he was a Bot. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2014, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/124 "2014-07-05T22:51:59Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > I guess you weren’t impressed by the Soon and Baliunas story in my previous post! 😃 Where would you expect anyone to get the specific evidence you’re asking for when so much of the funding is done through anonymous donor organizations – a trend that’s increasing? What we do have is aggregated information and estimates, such as the Brulle study I linked several times upthread and some of the other things I posted – including the oil industry’s history of denialism funding, and of course the in-your-face evidence of the sheer amount of denialist media that is out there, consistent with Brulle’s estimate of almost $1 billion spent on denialist propaganda over an 8-year period. BTW, the link is to an [abstract of the funding study](http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-013-1018-7) but if you Google the exact title you can download the full paper from Drexel University. [Here’s a summary](http://www.isciencetimes.com/articles/6577/20131225/climate-change-climate-change-deniers-dark-money-global-warming.htm) of some additional pertinent points: Not to be short but what’s being said here is “we do not have the evidence you’re asking for because it doesn’t exist.” Which makes it questionable to be making claims in this area so assertively as GIGO has done. > [@wolfpup](#): > > No, if you want to really interpret the OP in the appropriately narrow context, he’s just saying that oil companies are making bland generic statements on their websites acknowledging that fossil fuels contribute to global warming (while also downplaying it relative to the value of oil and economic growth etc. etc.) In other words, **they are making the only kinds of statements they can possibly make** without being ridiculed and harming their reputations even more than they’ve already been harmed. I never followed the tobacco stuff too closely but I don’t remember Big Tobacco accepting the science (publicly) on smoking and cancer until basically they were legally forced to put warnings on their product. So in a sense I do think even what (I’ve never contested) is a minor gesture paints a better picture of the oil majors than the tobacco companies. But I also think’s it’s a good thing to understand what companies are and particularly the oil majors. Their role is to provide a product that is currently essential to the global energy picture and for which there is immense demand. They are not going to be an engine of environmental change any more than Ford or GM are going to be big proponents of getting people to ride trains more often. There’s nothing inherently wrong that broad societal goals conflict with the more narrow goals of parts of our society (and yes, corporations and their stakeholders are parts of our society.) When you’re in the majority and recognize what must be done you simply have to do things to those parts of society through regulation and such that they may not like but will be better for society as a whole. I do not find it particularly useful or even meaningful to try and paint them as villains, they’re doing what they were created to do. It’s like painting a lion as a villain when it kills a gazelle on Discovery channel. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2014, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/125 "2014-07-05T23:20:16Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > And that brings me to **Tom**. **Tom** , I have to say that I see you doing something here I rarely have seen you do, and that is allowing your moderation and your position to on the subject to intertwine. I think you’ve made several questionable borderline calls that all go to support the side you’re obviously on. Just thought I’d bring that to your attention. What are you on about? I have not posted as a Mod, at all. I have made two statements that could be construed as Mod calls, but I did not post them in Moderator mode: in the first, I simply told one poster to back off on insults; in the second I noted that a poster was starting a hijack. There was an insult posted and the hijack was real. (Regardless how necessary oil may be, this thread was opened to discuss PR issues, not the need to continue to use oil. Oil companies are perfectly capable of buying ads that point out their necessity if that is what is required–and they have not.) ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2014, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/126 "2014-07-05T23:23:04Z")
I have not been able to spend any time reading this thread for more than 24 hours. I note that several posters are continuing the hijack regarding whether oil is necessary. Knock it off and open a new thread. This discussion is regarding the issue of whether PR indicates a serious attitude by oil companies regarding climate change. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2014, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/127 "2014-07-06T00:03:55Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > This is not my impression at all. In fact, next to BrainGlutton, he is the poster most guilty of responding with a link and not much, if anything, else. So much so that one poster thought he was a Bot. If I was confronting a creationist then sources like [Talkorigins.org](http://Talkorigins.org) demonstrates where the consensus and science are available to answer what it is clearly the repeated and already debunked positions of contrarians and people that did not bother to look at the science that was already reported. What you miss is that indeed some subjects were already so investigated that there are even groups that put those replied to death items to be cataloged. On subjects like this one contrarians are reaching what Asimov talked about in the Relativity of wrong. And in the past I have encountered pseudoscience proponents that also accused me of being a bot, it only demonstrated that they had run out of ideas or just resorted to attacking the poster and always avoiding what was cited, so if you want to be in the same column as the pseudo-scientists that thought that the sun is made of iron and all craters on mars were made by electrical super lightning be my guest. You are only ignoring that some subjects have a lot of resources and support and you are ignoring that that is also a huge failure from the contrarians, that on top of being wrong are recklessly ignoring that we are in the 21st century and think that uneducated opinions have more value; sorry, but I look for more than just feelings. [![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/OjD0e1d6GgQ/hqdefault.jpg?sqp=-oaymwEmCOADEOgC8quKqQMa8AEB-AH-BIAC4AOKAgwIABABGH8gPCgyMA8=&rs=AOn4CLBd5S181iOMH5yc7it73A1YAUEFFw "26 -- Science vs. the Feelies") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjD0e1d6GgQ) (Science writer Peter Hadfield explaining how contrarians only resort to feelings, and ignore the science… and attack the poster with accusations of being a bot when in reality contrarians are only avoiding dealing with the science positions that were cited already) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2014, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/128 "2014-07-06T00:19:40Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > GIGO pretty much always provides framing, a detailed quote and a link. I agree that pairing a statement with a you tube vid asks too much of the reader. But GIGO doesn’t do that. He’s an addition to this board. Thanks for that, it made my day. > [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Partly accurate, part fantasy. I don’t have a problem with most Exxon employees, even those who do a number on the environment. I do have a problem with secretly bending the rules in your favor. I do have a problem with securing billions of dollars of federal tax breaks and subsidies and Exxon shareholders with a diversified portfolio should have a problem with that as well. But that sort of activity is way above the pay grade of 99% of their employees. As Frontline showed, the contrarian think thanks and groups are finding that among scientists and academia they lost the debate a long time ago. Now the fight is to bend the rules indeed, and part of the bending is happening in congress, they are getting rid of even republicans that accepted the science and that should had been a scandal among the conservatives that appreciate science; but so far in discussions like this one I have not found one. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2014, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/129 "2014-07-06T00:41:04Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > This is hilarious. You actually think that the issues surrounding climate science are as straightforward an unambiguous as the simple factual matter of Guinness being from Ireland. And, lo, GIGO is a fair-minded chap, after all he admitted being wrong. True, he had to because it was a simple matter of fact that anyone could look up in 5 seconds, or by just picking up a can, but let this be evidence for his princely fairness and detached objectiveness. HA! > > Or did you intend this post of yours to appear in T_he Onion_? Third time were you only showed all that you refuse to acknowledge that you were wrong about what most scientists agree. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2014, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/130 "2014-07-06T15:31:16Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Not understanding what your asking. Should we be expecting oil companies to come out and say, “What can you expect us to do, given that the world still needs us to supply our product for decades?” ---
**Author:** ![ralfy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ralfy/32/600_2.png) [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/131 "2014-07-07T03:25:00Z")
This is probably taking place because we face two related problems: climate change and peak oil. More details from the IEA: “International Energy Agency says ‘peak oil’ has hit. Crisis averted?” > **[International Energy Agency says 'peak oil' has hit. Crisis averted?](https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-Issues/2010/1111/International-Energy-Agency-says-peak-oil-has-hit.-Crisis-averted)** > > 'Peak oil' hit in 2006, and a future of declining oil production means that ‘the age of cheap oil is over,’ says the IEA's chief economist. “World headed for irreversible climate change in five years, IEA warns” > **[World headed for irreversible climate change in five years, IEA warns](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/nov/09/fossil-fuel-infrastructure-climate-change)** > > If fossil fuel infrastructure is not rapidly changed, the world will 'lose for ever' the chance to avoid dangerous climate change ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/132 "2014-07-07T15:13:18Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > OK. So you do not know how analogy and comparison work. Fair enough. Since no one has called for the oil companies to shut down and stop producing oil, your point is nonsense. There was a specific analogy posted and finding nitpicky nonsense to complain about it that avoids the actual analogy does not make your point. First, apologies for being late to respond. I don’t do so much on weekends. I find this particular attempt at an analogy to be between situations that are insufficiently similar. I don’t believe this specific difference is at all nitpicky; I find it a fundamental difference that makes comparisons poor. > [@tomndebb](#): > > Apache? So what? What “concrete proposals” came from ExxonMobil, (that tried to bury the issue with vague allusions to other issues)? Where are the “concrete proposals” from any of the truly large outfits? Apache was just one that I remembered being very detailed. Also, Apache’s a pretty damn big company. It’s market cap is $40 billion. In the U.S. it drills more wells annually than Exxon, and it produces about half the oil that Exxon does. It’s a really large company. I’ll look for some other detailed proposals from other companies though. > [@tomndebb](#): > > **More to the point, you actually committed the fallacy of equivocation in the first two sentences of your own OP** , and your whole “debate” is based on that error. You noted that people have lodged the accusation that “Big Oil secretly funds all the Climate Change denialism,” then avoid a direct response to that accusation by saying _well they don’t deny it on their website_. So what? The point of everyone who has criticized the OP is that regardless of any feel-good lines that appear on a website, Big Oil is, indeed, funding climate change denialists–a point that you have refused to address with a single fact. Well, I think there can be a main argument and then several offshoots of discussion. The main argument, as stated in the title, is that Big Oil are not climate change denialists. I think some of the several related arguments that are worth discussing are: 1. Does it matter if they aren’t Denialists? 2. Do they fund denialists? 3. Should they be leading the way on climate change science and alternative fuels? 4. Are they hypocrites if they still produce oil? I don’t think I have failed to discuss any of these. I specifically responded to the links regarding the funding that the dollar amounts discussed were too small to matter and could have been made for any number of reasons. I haven’t responded with huge detail on that, but I might if I get around to it. > [@tomndebb](#): > > You are fixated on the wrong points–as you have been throughout this thread. The issue is not that you only posted the one-liners. The point is that you have not provided two specific things for which you have been asked: where is the refutation of any specific post claiming that Big Oil is funding the denialists? where is any evidence that they support genuine science into the issue? I did this already. But may do it in more detail. > [@tomndebb](#): > > Do what I asked. Several posts in this thread have pointed to Big Oil involvement with the denialists. Find the evidence that sows those citations to be in error. You brought up the topic. If you were not prepared to discuss it, you should have left it alone. (Refraing from the bait-and-switch argument you first offered would also have been a good idea.) This is absurd. How have I done a bait and switch. Look at the topic title. Look at the bottom line argument of the OP. [QUOTE=LonghornDave] So, I guess I’d like it to be considered settled that Big Oil agrees that climate change is real. Any disagreements with that? [/QUOTE] With that as the primary argument of this OP, how could I have possibly put out a more on point list of sites than the OP without being overly long? > [@tomndebb](#): > > You are doing it again–same bad logic. You did, indeed replace one point of discussion with a different answer. No one, (certainly no one that you have actually made the effort to quote), has claimed that Big Oil has “denied” Climate Change. You, yourself, have noted that the accusation is that Big Oil funds efforts to deny Climate Change–a charge that you resolutely refuse to address. You are seriously stating that I replaced one argument with another when the supposed replacement is the topic title, the bottom line argument in the OP, and what all of the evidence in the OP supports? It’s certainly fair to say I am arguing several things, but you have to twist my words pretty heavily to say that I have not been arguing from the beginning that Big Oil are not denialists. Further, poster in this thread specifically call them denialists. My point on that argument is that they cannot accurately be called climate change denialists when they don’t deny climate change is occurring. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/133 "2014-07-07T15:21:17Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > No, that is missing the point, as \*\*Farin \*\* inferred only by realizing that they are into the energy business is that they can evade the fate of those makers. And what I am saying is that their expertise does not translate to alternative fuels. There is nothing similar about drilling oil wells and building solar panels. This isn’t like Coca Cola realizing they are in the beverage business and bottling things other than soda. Big Oil’s skills don’t even translate very well to shale well drilling. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > I’m only saying, it is like I remarked on how mistaken idea that posters involved in the issue were not aware of what the Oil companies are saying officially. Your idea that proponents of change are not aware of what you claimed about not stopping using oil this instant is also \*\*not \*\*what I or others claimed. > > Just saying. I appreciate the discussion on the topic, but realize two things. First, I’m not saying that experts on the subject are unaware. I expect experts on the subject to be aware of most things related to the subject. I don’t think it is common knowledge among the populace even amongst the basic rank and file supporters of climate change activism. Second, I was not saying that activists propose the immediate stopping oil of production. I was saying that I believe the necessity of the product is a fundamental difference between oil and cigarettes. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/134 "2014-07-07T15:22:24Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > And you are wrong. Not in my opinion, and I think many would agree with me. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/135 "2014-07-07T15:35:58Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > Not in my opinion, and I think many would agree with me. “Many” can speak for themselves, if they so wish. Y’know, when I first read the OP I _honestly_ thought it was written tongue-in-cheek, given the miniscule and vague handwaving you pointed out versus the vast amount of time, effort and money the oil companies have spent over the years supporting the efforts of denialists. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/136 "2014-07-07T15:50:08Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > There are a couple of very basic bottom-line conclusions one can make here, and neither of them should be controversial. > > The first and most fundamental is the vast and, on the face of it, rather inexplicable gulf between what the science is telling us about climate change and what a big portion of the general public believes – and what many of them believe fervently, absolutely, and with visceral emotion, often based on really major misconceptions. So much so that, as already said, any Republican politician who aligns himself with the science does so at his great peril, and even most Democrats prefer not to talk about it much. This absurd situation is a fact – not something you can dance around – and the question is, how did it come about? > > A quick survey of Internet sites shows that rancorous websites denying AGW abound and greatly outnumber the relatively small number of sites that discuss legitimate science, so this public ignorance and misperception of facts can be thus explained, but what is its origin? Who has the greatest vested interest in climate change denial, the most money to engage in it, and a clear track record of having done so over many years? The oil companies. They are by no means the only culprits – there’s the coal companies and much of heavy industry, and their wealthy owners personally, like the infamous Koch brothers. But the oil companies bear a huge brunt of the responsibility. There seems little point in reposting the links to the denialism funding studies that I posted before. (ETA: IIRC the UCC study I linked attributes about ten times your stated $3 million to Exxon denialism funding – more like $29 million or so.) > > The second conclusion I will make is about your OP and the entire thread you started. It’s not appropriate to second-guess your motives and I have no basis for doing so, but the “not a strawman” argument has now developed into the assertion that you simply said that oil companies were acknowledging AGW on their websites, and didn’t intend to say or imply any more than that. Fair enough. What I conclude is that, whether you meant to do it or not, those links are misleading. That is the real point. No one cares what they “say” on their websites, what is important is what historically these companies have done, and what they continue to do. Exxon to this day for example continues to provide financial support to the Heritage Foundation, one of the most activist and notorious sources of lies about climate change (or to be more accurate, their contributions are traceable up to at least 2012). Coal-mining industrialists like Robert Murray are trying to sue the EPA while publicly lying about the reasons and about the facts of climate change. The Koch brothers are providing vast amounts of funding to climate change denial while egregiously violating environmental laws. > > The oil companies have historically been absolutely in lock-step with these sordid activities and you may choose to believe that all of them have suddenly and mysteriously reformed, but I don’t. Their public statements are the absolute minimum they can say about climate change without drawing the kind of public ridicule and chastisement from scientists and responsible politicians that Exxon, for one, has already attracted many times. So the implication that these companies are voluntarily presenting an accurate view of science, and doing so because they’re such good upstanding citizens, is utterly without merit. If they were, they’d be trying to reverse the absurd public misconceptions I described above instead of continuing to inflame them, and, as a few companies are starting to do, they’d be diversifying into energy sources that actually have a future. Until they do that, their pious wishy-washy website platitudes are worthless. Thank you for your post. I appreciate your points. I have a few comments. First, I am not unwilling to discuss other tangential aspects such as whether oil companies are hypocrites or what portion of climate change denialism is funded by oil companies, or what they should be doing to combat climate change or any number of others items. I feel like I’ve done that already and would be glad to double down on my efforts there. I don’t think it is fair to say I am arguing a strawman, shifting my arguments, avoiding answering, etc. I feel like I’m doing a decent job of trying to respond to almost every post that is directed toward me. I don’t think the dollar amounts that Big Oil has donated come close to making a difference in public perception. I also think they are, today, more than countered by their public positions and statements. I think that when we’re talking about small dollar contributions from any big company then we are potentially dealing with pet causes of individual employees. Donating to the Heritage Society can’t reasonably be called funding climate change denialism. They could, and almost certainly are, donating for many reasons. I personally think that much of the anti-climate change opinion is society and politics is one of convenience. People don’t like being told they need to change their ways. A lot of people are anti-science in general. I’ll write more about this later, but I want to catch up on other responses first. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/137 "2014-07-07T15:57:33Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Natch. But the \*scale \*of the necessity is lower, even per capita. As is the waste. > > But that aside, I also disagree with your seminal point re: the incomparable nature of Big Oil and Big Tobacco when it comes to their lobbying efforts and their PR. What does the absence of necessity for tobacco have to do with anything ? Well, for one, the absence of necessity means that tobacco companies were fighting for their survival while oil companies don’t need to. Their survival is already guaranteed. I think they rightly know that there is a strong need for petroleum products for at least the next 3-5 decades. They are in no danger of being eliminated as an industry and this would color their motivations. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/138 "2014-07-07T16:04:02Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > Well, for one, the absence of necessity means that tobacco companies were fighting for their survival while oil companies don’t need to. Their survival is already guaranteed. I think they rightly know that there is a strong need for petroleum products for at least the next 3-5 decades. They are in no danger of being eliminated as an industry and this would color their motivations. They aren’t lying for survival. They are lying for greed/profit. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/139 "2014-07-07T16:16:15Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > You know, on one hand you have these short statements by parent companies. And on the other, you have [this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy#Funding_controversy), where a demonstrably bullshit denialist paper was bought and paid for by the oil industry. I’m not entirely sure if they’re putting their money where their mouth is on this one. Maybe I’m wrong about this, but I just don’t see the funding as material. According to this, the American Petroleum Institute gave $274,000 between 2001 and 2007 and Exxon gave $335,000 between 2005 and 2010, and Exxon gave $15,000 in 2000. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/140 "2014-07-07T16:28:09Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > They aren’t lying for survival. > They are lying for greed/profit. That they will profit is guaranteed since their business will survive for decades. The demand for oil last decades in a similar volume to that needed today. Zero reason to think they can’t produce and sell it at similar margins to today. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303.md?page=8)