AGU continues complicit support for Merchants of Doubt

Scientists Asked to Boycott Major Conference After AGU Votes to Retain ExxonMobil Ties

This is not surprising given the AGU’s failure to discipline Richard Lindzen for academic misconduct, hypocrisy, and the denegration of fellow AGU members, but, as reported via DeSmogBlog recently:

Scientists are being asked to boycott the next major meeting of the world’s biggest earth sciences organisation after it voted to retain relationships with ExxonMobil. The American Geophysical Union last week rejected calls from members to break ties with ExxonMobil over the oil giant’s history of funding and supporting climate science misinformation. AGU members have been voicing their dismay at the decision, which ignored the concerns of more than 200 scientists, many of them AGU members, calling for the relationship to end. AGU’s board said it would accept sponsorship from ExxonMobil for a breakfast event at its Fall Meeting in December – an event the oil company had previously sponsored. But Professor Charles Greene, of Cornell University, told DeSmog: “This is far from over. There can be little doubt that this will lead to the biggest shake up in AGU’s history. There is a lot more at stake here than $35,000 for a graduate student breakfast.” Greene has called on scientists to boycott the December meeting held by AGU – an influential organisation with about 60,000 members in 139 countries. In a statement Greene said: “At what level does the behavior of a corporate sponsor become sufficiently reprehensible for AGU to refuse its support? I guess that a corporation like ExxonMobil, which has deceived the general public for decades while placing human society at great risk, has not achieved that level. “The only conclusion to be drawn is that AGU will accept money from just about any corporate entity, no matter how unethical its behavior. I certainly will not attend an ExxonMobil-sponsored Fall Meeting, and I hope that every AGU member who feels the same way about this lapse in judgement will consider sending a similar message.” ExxonMobil is facing investigations from several attorneys general, led by New York, over allegations the company misled shareholders and the public about the risk of climate change caused by fossil fuel burning. The probes were sparked by investigations from Inside Climate News and the Los Angeles Times, which highlighted internal Exxon documents showing in the 1970s the company’s own scientists were aware of the clear risks of burning fossil fuels. Over the years Exxon is known to have spent tens of millions of dollars funding dozens of organisations that have worked to mislead the public about the science linking greenhouse gas emissions to global warming. Check out DeSmog’s research into ExxonMobil’s Funding of Climate Science Denial. In the run up to AGU’s decision, more than 100 AGU members signed an open letter alongside other scientists asking for their organisation to end the relationship with Exxon. Some members also issued a detailed dossier to the board claiming the organisation’s relationship with ExxonMobil violated its own organizational support policy, agreed in April 2015. That policy states that AGU “will not accept funding from organizational partners that promote and/or disseminate misinformation of science, or that fund organizations that publicly promote misinformation of science.” The dossier included numerous examples of Exxon funding organisations, including the American Enterprise Institute, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the National BAltman Chamber of Commerce, that have underplayed and disparaged the science linking fossil fuel burning to dangerous climate change. Scientists are also pressing the AGU leadership group to release more details of how the board came to its decision, including their deliberations over the dossier. In announcing the decision, AGU president Margaret Leinen wrote that “it is not possible for us to determine unequivocally whether ExxonMobil is participating in misinformation about science currently, either directly or indirectly.” She said it had been decided AGU’s acceptance of ExxonMobil sponsorship did “not constitute a threat to AGU’s reputation.” ExxonMobil also funds meetings of ALEC – a lobby group with strong corporate ties that creates template bills for legislators that block attempts to cut greenhouse gas emissions and slow the development of renewable energy. Stephen Moore, a member of ALEC’s advisory council alongside ExxonMobil government affairs manager Cynthia Bergman, told an ALEC meeting last year: “The biggest scam of the last 100 years is global warming!” Professor Nathan Phillips, of Boston University, said: “What was called for was an exercise of judgment. Instead, the AGU avoided taking a principled stand by claiming it is not possible for it to make a judgement. The leadership seems prepared to accept some loss of membership, but what it may not be prepared for is the redoubled commitment of members who won’t relent in shining an even brighter light on the inconsistency of the AGU’s mission of a sustainable planetary future with its endorsement of ExxonMobil’s past and current activities.” ExxonMobil’s company position on climate change says: “The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks.” The AGU is holding two conference calls this week where members can ask questions of AGU President-elect Eric Davidson, CEO Christine McEntee and Leinen.

Image courtesy of Natural History Museum


About Rick Altman

Possibly just another 'Climate Cassandra' crying 'Wolf' in cyberspace. However, the moral of the old children's story is that the Wolf eventually turned up!
This entry was posted in Climate Science, Denial, Ethics, Fossil Fuels, Lindzengate, Merchants of Doubt, Richard Lindzen and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to AGU continues complicit support for Merchants of Doubt

  1. Rick Hultman says:

    Please consider this a special invitation: Climate denialism/skepticism in a warming world; Linköping 27-29 of October 2016 Despite accumulating scientific evidence of the reality and seriousness of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), ACC is highly contested in several nations. This small conference will make possible a cross-cultural, cross-political sharing of knowledge regarding climate change skepticism and denial, trying to address one of the biggest questions of our time: When we have the knowledge of the threat posed by climate change, why do we not act accordingly? We have recognized the great and important research you are doing in the field of climate denialism/skepticism. In addition Riley Dunlap, who is part of the scientific board has recommended your work. This is a field of great importance as well as of in need of internationally comparative studies. We are very happy to invite you to the first ever conference with the specific focus on climate denialism/skepticism. This small sized conference gathering internationally prominent well cited scholars, scholars from the Nordic countries and up to 10 ITC connected participants through video conference directed by Linköping University is to be held in Sweden. All in all we will be 25 scholars. The conference is scheduled for 27-29 of October 2016. This workshop will have scholars presenting live as well as by ITC devices detailed analyses of climate change denial in various nations (USA, Canada, Australia, Germany, Sweden, UK, Netherlands, France and Finland and others), employing data from content analyses, case studies, network analyses, etc. to highlight the commonalities and differences in the denial campaigns across these countries. Special attention will be given to cross-national linkages among key actors such as conservative think tanks and contrarian scientists that have helped to diffuse denial from the USA, as well as the impacts of the campaigns in policy arenas. Empirically based comparisons across the various nations will yield a more robust understanding of the sources, nature and appeal of climate change denial and skepticism, including implications for climate science and climate policy-making. Given the proven research and publication records of the workshop participants invited, we are confident that valuable scholarly products will emerge—either in the form of one more journal symposia or a large edited volume with a well-known publisher. Confirmed keynote: Professor Riley E. Dunlap. Confirmed scholars: Associate professor Nathan Young; Professor Robert Brulle; Assistant Professor Constantine Boussalis. There is no fee for the conference and food and drinks are provided by a grant from FORMAS. If you are interested, please send a title and abstract, if you want to participate via video link or in personal as well as a CV with your most relevant publications to:


  2. nuwurld says:

    Having spent many thousands of hours studying the vertical thermal profile of gravitationally bound gaseous envelopes Rick, I would tend to agree with ExxonMobil. Nothing wrong with increased CO2. There is no evidence of increased kinetic energy in the lower troposphere where opacity is highest, other than one of equilibrium with gravitational potential. What people generally are taught and ‘understand’ about radiation within the atmosphere and the effects of long wave back radiation upon surface temperature are plainly not true. Very willing to discuss this issue.


    • Rick Altman says:

      Thanks for the offer, Geoff. However, I very much doubt ExxonMobil would agree with you.


      • nuwurld says:

        So Rick, you feel that ExxonMobil agree with the link you posted? That climate change is all about human production of GHG’s? Have you read your own article? [The Bloomberg article acknowledges the full range of other climate change drivers. What ExonnMobil would not like, however, is the very clear illustration of just how dominant is the role of anthropogenic CO2. – ML]


      • Rick Altman says:

        ExxonMobil continue to perpetuate doubt in order to maximise the longevity of their 19th Century fuel. However, when challenged, even they have repudiated discredited arguments such as ‘CO2 is plant food’. On the contrary, recent research findings have repeatedly demonstrated that the long-term negative effects of increasing atmospheric CO2 will very quickly outweigh any short-term positive effects (i.e. because ‘trees cannot migrate’, etc). For example:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s