Finally:Exxon cuts ties to global warming skeptics

[simba]

<p>Oil giant also in talks to look at curbing greenhouse gases</p>

<p>NEW YORK - Oil major Exxon Mobil Corp. is engaging in industry talks on possible U.S. greenhouse gas emissions regulations and has stopped funding groups skeptical of global warming claims ? moves that some say could indicate a change in stance from the long-time foe of limits on heat-trapping gases.</p>

<p>Exxon, along with representatives from about 20 other companies, is participating in talks sponsored by Resources for the Future, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit. The think tank said it expected the talks would generate a report in the fall with recommendations to legislators on how to regulate greenhouse emissions.</p>

<p>Boudreux said Exxon in 2006 stopped funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a nonprofit advocating limited government regulation, and other groups that have downplayed the risks of greenhouse emissions.</p>

<p>CEI acknowledged the change. ?I would make an argument that we?re a useful ally, but it?s up to them whether that?s in the priority system that they have, right or wrong,? director Fred Smith said on CNBC?s ?On the Money.?</p>

<p>Last year, CEI ran advertisements, featuring a little girl playing with a dandelion, that downplayed the risks of carbon dioxide emissions.</p>

<p>Some see Exxon?s participation in the talks, coupled with its pledge to stop funding CEI, as early signs of a possible policy change.</p>

<p>?The fact that Exxon is trying to debate solutions, instead of whether climate change even exists, represents an important shift,? said Andrew Logan, a climate expert at Ceres, a coalition of investors and environmentalists that works with companies to cut climate change risks.</p>

<p>Exxon?s funding action was confirmed this week by its vice president for public affairs. Kenneth Cohen told the Wall Street Journal that Exxon decided in late 2005 that its 2006 nonprofit funding would not include CEI and “five or six” similar groups. </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16593606/[/url]”>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16593606/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>the Competitive Enterprise Institute produced a TV ad in which they say some call CO2 pollutant, we call it life.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>Why only now?</p>

<p>Pretty simple answer … <a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Raymond[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Raymond&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Except for making LOTS of money for Exxon shareholders (a job he did very well on behalf of its shareholders) you’d have to drill very, very deep to find a single human quality in this person. Of course, making a lot of money might not be on everyone’s list of qualities, but this is the US of A.</p>

[simba]

<p>May be XOM’s change in heart is more due to their ability to do business in EU. They and likes of them have successfully paralyzed the public.</p>

[mini]

<p>Raymond’s out at Exxon, but still does the heavy lifting for the Republican Party through the American Enterprise Institute. (soon to be a shil for Newt)</p>

[garland]

<p>Maybe because Michael Crichton is now the only person in America who doubts that humans are contributing to climate change?</p>

<p>

President Bush has said it. </p>

<p>A lot of government scientists have said it.</p>

<p>But until yesterday, it appeared that no news release on annual climate trends out of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under the Bush White House had said unequivocally that a buildup of greenhouse gases was helping warm the climate. </p>

<p>The statement came in a release that said 2006 was the warmest year for the 48 contiguous states since regular temperature records began in 1895. It surpassed the previous champion, 1998, a year heated up by a powerful episode of the periodic warming of the tropical Pacific Ocean by El Ni?o. Last year, another El Ni?o developed, but this time a long-term warming trend from human activities was said to be involved as well. </p>

<p>“A contributing factor to the unusually warm temperatures throughout 2006 also is the long-term warming trend, which has been linked to increases in greenhouse gases,” the release said, emphasizing that the relative contributions of El Ni?o and the human influence were not known.</p>

<p>A link between greenhouse gases and climate change was also made in a December news conference by Dirk Kempthorne, the secretary of the interior, as that agency proposed listing polar bears as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. </p>

<p>Still, the climate agency’s shift in language came as a surprise to several public affairs officials there. They said they had become accustomed in recent years to having any mention of a link between climate trends and human activities played down or trimmed when drafts of documents went to the Commerce Department and the White House for approval. </p>

<p>James L. Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said the release reflected longstanding views within the administration. </p>

<p>“It’s helpful for them to describe what is a question in many people’s minds — what is the human factor, what is the El Ni?o factor,” Mr. Connaughton said of the NOAA release. “From our perspective, what was in the press release was a direct reflection of what the president and folks in his administration have been saying for some time.” </p>

<p>Mr. Bush has made two speeches on climate. He first expressly accepted that humans were contributing to global warming in a news conference in Denmark in July 2005 on the way to an economic summit in Scotland, saying, “Listen, I recognize that the surface of the Earth is warmer and that an increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing to the problem.”

</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/10/science/10climate.html?pagewanted=all[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/10/science/10climate.html?pagewanted=all&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>So maybe we can move on with what to do about it.</p>

[itstoomuch]

<p>Idea for new game. See new thread. Thanks garland.</p>