One of the common memes in the global warming debate is people skeptical of global warming are conspiracy nuts who think it's all a hoax. I'm not going to talk about that today. Instead, I'd like to talk about the conspiracy global warming advocates claim exist - a massive disinformation campaign by oil companies.

There's a lot of material on that topic, and I won't attempt to cover it all in this post. Instead, I'm going to focus on a post written by Brandon Gates, who I recently praised for acknowledging he had been wrong on an issue. The post's central theme can be summarized:

Links in original, my emphasis. No consensus? Confused about what "consensus" means? Suck it Shollenberger. At least one oil company grokked it in the early 1980s. Wake up.

...

So They Knew and Even Published ... What's the Beef?

Because starting with James Hansen's 1988 congressional testimony, the worm began to turn. The very next year, Exxon began what would ultimately be a public swing in the exact opposite direction as a founding member of the Global Climate Coalition (GCC): Exxon helped to found and lead the Global Climate Coalition, an alliance of some of the world's largest companies seeking to halt government efforts to curb fossil fuel emissions. Exxon used the American Petroleum Institute, right-wing think tanks, campaign contributions and its own lobbying to push a narrative that climate science was too uncertain to necessitate cuts in fossil fuel emissions. As the international community moved in 1997 to take a first step in curbing emissions with the Kyoto Protocol, Exxon's chairman and CEO Lee Raymond argued to stop it.

In the past, I've tended not to get involved in discussions about things like this. The "Suck it Shollenberger" line caught my eye though, especially since by the time I saw it, Gates had recognized he was wrong on the issue that caused him to make the remark. That seemed funny, but it also seemed like a bit of a challenge.

If you make a remark like that in a discussion I have no involvement in, well first, it seems kind of weird. I don't know why you'd direct a remark at someone who hasn't had any involvement in the discussion. Second, you have to understand you're egging me on and are going to make me want to respond. So here we are. We're looking at documents from Exxon like this one from 1982 which opens with a basic summary of global warming which almost sounds like anything you'd hear now, 30+ years later. Consider:

Our best estimate is that doubling of the current concentration could increase average global temperature by about 1.3C to 3.1C. The increase would not be uniform over the earth's surface with the polar caps likely to see temperature increases on the order of 10C and the equator little, if any, increase.

Nowadays a more typical estimate for climate sensitivity might be something like 1.5C to 4.5C, but all in all, the document is a good overview given it is 30+ years old. Because of that, Gates quotes a piece saying:

Exxon's research laid the groundwork for a 1982 corporate primer on carbon dioxide and climate change prepared by its environmental affairs office. Marked "not to be distributed externally," it contained information that "has been given wide circulation to Exxon management." In it, the company recognized, despite the many lingering unknowns, that heading off global warming "would require major reductions in fossil fuel combustion." Unless that happened, "there are some potentially catastrophic events that must be considered," the primer said, citing independent experts. "Once the effects are measurable, they might not be reversible."

This is where the problem begins. Let's look at the last quote first. To begin, it's not a genuine quote. While in the quote the first word is capitalized, as though the sentence began with the word "Once," that's not true. The actual quote is:

However, there is concern among some scientific groups that once the effects are measurable, they might not be reversible and little could be done to correct the situation in the short term.

This is not a statement of position by Exxon or the people writing the document. It's a statement of what some people believed at that time. By taking it out of context then misquoting it by capitalizing a word in the middle of the sentence to make it appear a full sentence was quoted, the meaning of this statement is distorted. Consider what comes immediately before that sentence:

The "greenhouse effect" is not likely to cause substantial climatic changes until the average global temperature rises at least 1C above today's levels. This could occur in the second to third quarter of the next century.

According to Exxon's stated position in this document, no substantial climatic changes would occur until at least 2050. So while the cited article portrays this primer as showing Exxon knew action needed to be taken to combat global warming ("would require major reductions in fossil fuel combustion"), the reality is the context makes it clear Exxon thought nothing of the sort:

Mitigation of the "greenhouse effect" would require major reductions in fossil fuel combustion.

...

Overall, the current outlook suggests potentially serious climate problems are not likely to occur until the late 21st century or perhaps beyond at the projected energy demand rates. This should provide time to resolve uncertainties regarding the overall carbon cycle...

As for the quote saying "there are some potentially catastrophic events that must be considered," it is part of a discussion of how Exxon viewed the probability of various outcomes and what sort of damages of such events might have. In other words, Exxon knew there were potential issues to consider.

But so what? Back in 1982, Exxon knew global warming might become a problem. It had a good grasp of what the scientific community thought about the subject, and it reported it accurately. So what's the beef? Above we saw it given as:

Exxon helped to found and lead the Global Climate Coalition, an alliance of some of the world's largest companies seeking to halt government efforts to curb fossil fuel emissions. Exxon used the American Petroleum Institute, right-wing think tanks, campaign contributions and its own lobbying to push a narrative that climate science was too uncertain to necessitate cuts in fossil fuel emissions.

But so what? That position is exactly what Exxon had said in the 1982 document. In addition to what I've quoted above, consider:

Making significant changes in energy consumption patterns now to deal with this potential problem 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.

So in 1982, Exxon said there was too much uncertainty over global warming to necessitate cuts in fossil fuel emissions. They then helped create a group which said the same thing and used lobbying to push the narrative there was too much uncertaintty over global warming to necessitate cuts in fossil fuel emissions. Whether or not one agrees they were right about the amount of uncertainty at any given time, their position was consistent. Gates tries to portray it as otherwise:

Most importantly, lobby groups should not stretch the truth. Or outright lie. Will never happen of course, but one can always hope ... In December, 1992 GCC's executive director wrote in a letter to The New York Times: "...there is considerable debate on whether or not man-made greenhouse gases (produced primarily by burning fossil fuels) are triggering a dangerous 'global warming' trend."[42] GCC distributed a half-hour video entitled The Greening of Planet Earth, to hundreds of journalists, the White House, and several Middle Eastern oil-producing countries, which suggested that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide could boost crop yields and solve world hunger.[43][44] ... or not. More like "considerable manufactured debate", and they were a leading voice in concocting the faux narrative. As in they ginned it up from nothing. Conjured it literally out of thin air. You doubt me?

Yes Gates, I do doubt you. There is nothing in that quotation which suggests Exxon lied. Not only is there nothing in the 1982 primer suggesting Exxon believed, much less knew, greenhouse gases "are triggering a dangerous 'global warming' trend," there isn't even anything showing Exxon believed, much less knew, greenhouse gases were even triggering a warming trend at all. It says:

There is currently no unambiguous scientific evidence that the earth is warming. If the earth is on a warming trend, we're not likely to detect it before 1995.

Gates portrays Exxon as having lied because it knew greenhouse gases were triggering a dangerous warming trend, but according to the Exxon document he relies upon, Exxon wasn't even certain the planet was warming. It couldn't have known there was a dangerous warming if it didn't even know there was any warming at all.

The only people who have "ginned it up from nothing" are people like Gates who somehow ignore that this document explicitly says the opposite of what they claim it shows. The idea there's some contradiction here was literally conjured out of thin air.

Gates then quotes a Wikipedia article that says (in part):

In 1995, GCC assembled an advisory committee of scientific and technical experts to compile an internal-only, 17-page report on climate science entitled Predicting Future Climate Change: A Primer, which said: “The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied.”

According to The New York Times, the primer demonstrated that "even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted."

Again, let's try looking at the actual document and seeing what sorts of things it said rather than going off short quotes presented without any context. It turns out that quote is the answer to the first of four numbered questions:

1) Can human activities affect climate?

2) Can future climate be accurately predicted?

3) Have human activities over the last 120 years affected climate, i.e. has the change been greater than natural variability?

4) Are there alternate explanations for the climate change which has occurred over the last 120 years?

Each of these questions has a short answer, like the one quoted above, as well as a more lengthy section explaining the answer. Even without reading those answers though, we can see the portrayal given with that out=of-context quotation is misleading. Just look at question 3, which asks if humans have had any effect. That question wouldn't need to be asked if question 1 was about the issue Gates and others are quoting it in reference to.

To consider, look at what the answer actually says. It says the greenhouse effect and the potential for humans to affect the planet via it are indisputable. Note the word potential. Now look at the answer to question 3:

Given the limitations of climate models and other information on this question, current claims that a human impact on climate has already been detected, are unjustified.

However, assessment of whether human activities have already affected climate may be

possible when improved climate models are available. Alternatively, a large, short term change in climate consistent with model predictions could be taken as proof of a human component of climate change.

In 1995, 13 years after the previous document, Exxon was still saying that we can't even detect a human influence on the planet's climate. There's no contradiction unless you take quotes completely out of context, as Gates goes on to do. He says:

Demonstrated in the lab. Consensus defined as "essentially all of today's concern is about net warming." Not only "cannot be denied" but "should not be denied".

I'll provide the corresponding quote to each of these remarks in turn. "Demonstrated in the lab":

The science of the Greenhouse Effect is well established and can be demonstrated in the laboratory.

Exxon didn't deny the greenhouse effect. This statement was regarding the fact the basic mechanics of the greenhouse effect can be verified via experiments. Testing mechanics in a lab doesn't mean your results will be the same in the real world though. An effect found in the lab could fail to manifest in the real world due to different factors, or it could be counteracted by something that wasn't present in the lab, or it could just be the effect turns out to be very small when examined in the real world. That's why the document even said "in theory, human activities have the potential to result in net cooling..."

"Consensus defined as 'essentially all of today's concern is about net warming.'"

the current balance between greenhouse gas emissions and the emissions of particulates and particulate-formers is such that essentially all of today's concern is about net warming.

I have no idea where Gates gets this interpretation from. The Exxon document didn't say a word about this being the "consensus." There isn't even a position being stated. All this quotation says is people at that time were discussing global warming, not global cooling. That doesn't really tell us anything about what they were saying about global warming. It certainly doesn't define a consensus position.

"Not only 'cannot be denied' but 'should not be denied'.

These three factors create the potential for a human impact on climate. The potential for a human impact on climate is based on well-established scientific fact, and should not be denied.

Po-ten-tial. Agreeing there is a potential for humans to cause global warming no way endorses the idea there is a dangerous warming trend triggered by greenhouse gases.

There's plenty more to Gates's post, but I'm tired. I don't find this subject interesting. All that's going on is Gates and other people are taking quotes out of context to make it appear Exxon initially believed global warming was a dangerous threat that needed to be addressed then started telling the public otherwise in an act of deception. In reality, Exxon has consistently denied the idea there is any need to take immediate action to address global warming. The documents claimed to show otherwise consistently say things like:

Scientists also agree that atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases (such as C02) are increasing as a result of human activity. But scientists differ on whether the increase in the concentrations of these gases will cause an "enhanced greenhouse effect," or warming of the planet. because the role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood.

This is from the 1995 primer portrayed as proving Exxon knew there was a consensus on global warming. How does this contradict anything Exxon said or did afterward? It doesn't. None of the many quotations like this one get quoted even though they show Exxon's position on global warming was consistent all along.

The only way to portray these documents as proving Exxon lied is to ignore the vast majority of what the documents say and rely on a handful of short quotations taken out context. You won't find a single quotation in these documents that, in context, shows Exxon endorsed any "consensus" on global warming. You won't even find that they acknowledged humans had already caused the planet to warm.

But according to Gates and other people who are certain groups like Exxon are filled with nefarious intent, these documents prove Exxon lied. In light of that and the sort-of challenge Gates included to me in his post, I offer a simple and direct challenge to Brandon Gates:

Show a single quotation from any Exxon document prior to 1996 in which Exxon accepted humans had already caused warming or that there would (not just might) be dangerous warming in the future. If you cannot, admit you were wrong.

Again!