### Author:  [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)
#### Post date: [January 19, 2007, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/exxon-finally-folds-on-global-warming/388552/1 "2007-01-19T03:16:24Z")
It’s the moment we’ve almost all been waiting for. [Exxon Mobil has agreed to talks on reducing carbon dioxide emissions](http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=2790313). They’re also running away from their notorious campaign of pseudoscience designed to convince people that global warming isn’t happening.
A few obvious remarks. First of all, Exxon Mobil is not the name that comes to mind when one hears the word “honesty”. They may backtrack on some of these promises. Second, even if they do agree to negotiations about greenhouse gas emissions, they’ll doubtlessly fight hard for the most lenient regulations possible, and will try to water down any standards that are established.
Nevertheless, I think this is a pivotal moment in the campaign against climate change. First, [as we all know](http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/some_like_it_hot.html), Exxon Mobil is responsible for just about every organization that spreads false claims about climate change, from major think tanks to one-man internet misinformation sites. ([ahem](http://www.junkscience.com)) With much of their funding dried up, these organizations will start to fade, and global warming skeptics won’t have as much effect on the debate. Second, now that every major oil corporation has acknowledged the truth and will work to cut carbon dioxide, there isn’t much reason for anyone in the political or media spheres to remain in denial.
Recalling the tobacco wars, as long as the big tobacco companies were fighting to undermine the scientific link between cancer and cigarettes and the addictiveness of nicotine, there was little progress on government action to curtail the industry. But when they were finally forced to acknowledge the truth in the late 80’s and early 90’s, legislation finally started moving forward. I sense there will be a similar ‘breaking of the dam’ with regard to greenhouse emissions.
---
### Author:  [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)
#### Post date: [January 19, 2007, 9:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/exxon-finally-folds-on-global-warming/388552/2 "2007-01-19T09:13:43Z")
[Days late and many dollars short](http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1994071,00.html) unfortunately.
> [@](#):
>
> Carbon dioxide is accumulating in the atmosphere much faster than scientists expected, raising fears that humankind may have less time to tackle climate change than previously thought.
>
> \
>
> At its most far reaching, the finding could indicate that global temperatures are making forests, soils and oceans less able to absorb carbon dioxide - a shift that would make it harder to tackle global warming. Such a shift would worsen even the gloomy predictions of the Stern Review which warned that we had little over a decade to tackle rising emissions to avoid the worst effects of climate change.
>
> From 1970 to 2000 that concentration rose by about 1.5ppm each year, as human activities sent more of the gas into the atmosphere. But according to the latest figures, last year saw a rise of 2.6ppm. And 2006 was not alone. A series of similar jumps in recent years means the carbon dioxide level has risen by an average 2.2ppm each year since 2001.
>
> Above-average annual rises in carbon dioxide levels have been explained by natural events such as the El Niño weather pattern, centred on the Pacific Ocean. But the last El Niño was in 1998, when it resulted in a record annual increase in carbon dioxide of 2.9ppm. If the current trend continues, this year’s predicted El Niño could see the annual rise in carbon dioxide pass the 3ppm level for the first time.
>
> Prof Cox said that an increase in forest fires, heatwaves across Europe and the Amazon drought of 2005 could have helped to drive up carbon dioxide levels. Such events are predicted to become more frequent with rising global temperatures. He admitted “the jury is still out” on whether the recent spike is evidence of a significant change, although some computer models predict that the Earth will start to absorb less carbon dioxide some time this decade.
---
### Author:  [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)
#### Post date: [January 20, 2007, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/exxon-finally-folds-on-global-warming/388552/3 "2007-01-20T03:32:29Z")
In other [news](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/19/business/19carbon.html), a group of major companies have teamed up with a few environmental groups to call for a cap-and-trade system on carbon dioxide emissions:
> [@](#):
>
> Ten major companies with operations across the economy — utilities, manufacturing, petroleum, chemicals and financial services — have banded together with leading environmental groups to call for a firm nationwide limit on carbon dioxide emissions that would lead to reductions of 10 to 30 percent over the next 15 years.
>
> Introduction of this group, which includes industry giants like General Electric, DuPont and Alcoa, is aimed at adding to the recent impetus for Congressional action on emissions controls and the creation of a market in which allowances to emit carbon dioxide could be traded in a way that achieves the greatest reduction at the lowest cost.
>
> …
>
> Aside from General Electric and Alcoa, Caterpillar is the leading manufacturing company among the group, which also includes four utilities — Duke Energy, based in North Carolina; PG&E of California; the FPL Group of Florida; and PNM Resources of New Mexico. The group counts the multinational oil company BP and Lehman Brothers as members as well.
---
### Author:  [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)
#### Post date: [January 20, 2007, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/exxon-finally-folds-on-global-warming/388552/4 "2007-01-20T07:45:16Z")
[QUOTE=tagos]
[Days late and many dollars short](http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1994071,00.html) unfortunately.
[/QUOTE]
Tagos, you quote the article as saying:
> [@](#):
>
> From 1970 to 2000 that concentration rose by about 1.5ppm each year, as human activities sent more of the gas into the atmosphere. But according to the latest figures, last year saw a rise of 2.6ppm. And 2006 was not alone. A series of similar jumps in recent years means the carbon dioxide level has risen by an average 2.2ppm each year since 2001.
In the interests of fighting ignorance, you should never, never get your scientific information from the Guardian. The [NOAA web site](http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/projects/web/trends/co2_mm_mlo.dat) currently shows that the 2006 CO2 increase was 2.1ppm, and the Guardian was forced to retract their story. The retraction says:
> [@](#):
>
> UPDATE: The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) has now told us that the story below is based on preliminary data for December, which it should not have published. It has withdrawn the data pending further analysis. As a result, the provisional annual growth rate for 2006 displayed on the Noaa website now does not include December, which means it is now lower than the 2.6ppm we reported. Pieter Tans, the scientist in charge of the data, said: “It doesn’t affect the trend, there is definitely something there. CO2 growth in 2006 was still higher than average and four of the last five years have been higher than average.”
Yes, it’s lower all right … 20% lower, and lower than the previous year … the increase DIMINISHED in 2006, and the Guardian declares an emergency. Kinda makes their speculations look stupid:
> [@](#):
>
> New figures from dozens of measuring stations across the world reveal that concentrations of CO2, the main greenhouse gas, rose at record levels during 2006 - the fourth year in the last five to show a sharp increase. Experts are puzzled because the spike, which follows decades of more modest annual rises, does not appear to match the pattern of steady increases in human emissions.
>
> At its most far reaching, the finding could indicate that global temperatures are making forests, soils and oceans less able to absorb carbon dioxide - a shift that would make it harder to tackle global warming. Such a shift would worsen even the gloomy predictions of the Stern Review which warned that we had little over a decade to tackle rising emissions to avoid the worst effects of climate change.
Since CO2 rise decreased, there is no “finding” of an increase, much less a record increase, so all of that is nonsense, including the puzzled experts.
Also, averaging “each year since 2001” is sneaky, since the increase in 2000 was 1.3 and the increase in 2001 was 1.7 ppm. Also, the average since 2001 was 2.1, not 2.2.
Finally, the annual increase in the CO2 level in the air has been gradually increasing since at least 1850. With a rising trend, it is not surprising if a number of the largest values are in the last ten years. Stating this for shock value will certainly impress the innumerate, but means nothing. All around, about average for the Guardian …
Regardless of whether one is pro- or anti- AGW, it is crucial to start with correct data.
w.
---
### Author:  [@FRDE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FRDE)
#### Post date: [January 20, 2007, 9:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/exxon-finally-folds-on-global-warming/388552/5 "2007-01-20T09:58:53Z")
My view is that it makes perfect sense for the oil majors to jump on the Gloabal Warming bandwagon.
They love high oil prices and sticking up a few wind generators is small change to them.
Unlike tobacco people are unlikely to spring class actions on them.
---
### Author:  [@DoctorJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DoctorJ)
#### Post date: [January 20, 2007, 10:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/exxon-finally-folds-on-global-warming/388552/6 "2007-01-20T10:56:56Z")
There are stories out there saying that Bush and the GOP (in general) are getting ready to shift their rhetoric and start recognizing global warming as a real issue. This is in response to a push from overseas leaders and, oddly enough, from the evangelical wing of his party, which is to say the wing of the party leadership that is not in the oil companies’ pocket.
It looks like Exxon knows which way the wind is going to blow. Best to get out ahead of it now; otherwise, it looks like a reaction to Bush.
---
### Author:  [@hawthorne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hawthorne)
#### Post date: [January 20, 2007, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/exxon-finally-folds-on-global-warming/388552/7 "2007-01-20T13:59:28Z")
Yes, the stories are out there about a shift in policy. Stand by to hear a lot more about switchgrass and how it can combat climate change and reduce dependence on middle east oil.
---
### Author:  [@FRDE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FRDE)
#### Post date: [January 21, 2007, 10:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/exxon-finally-folds-on-global-warming/388552/8 "2007-01-21T10:24:50Z")
Yo ! In the Sunday Observer today, there is an argument that some bunch of experts have concluded that GW is advancing faster than previously thought.
Sea levels are rising at 2mm per year, which they confusingly make half a metre over the century (surely 200mm is 0.2 metres ? ).
It seems that they think the Gulf Stream will not move, but then it might due to run offs from Greenland - shucks, we in the UK might have a nice climate, or we might freeze to death.
The oceans are going to become acid baths, nothing lives in carbonated water, not even algae ?
I look forward to Shell, BP and Exxon transforming themselves into Carbon Trading and Sequestration companies.