Researchers measure disconnect between science and public relations at ExxonMobil
Most readers of this blog are aware of a discrepancy between what ExxonMobil scientists have been reporting for decades, in a purely scientific context, and the company’s position as reflected in public statements and media “advertorials.”
But how big is the discrepancy? How about, enormous.
Two Harvard researchers undertook to pin down the magnitude of the discrepancy quantitatively—chiefly by content analysis—and the results surprised even me. The thrust of the analysis rested on the frequency with which ExxonMobil scientists published scientific papers supporting the hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming and Climate Change, versus the public statements and advertorials in media such as the New York Times.
Here’s the core of the findings: that “83% of peer-reviewed papers [by Exxon scientists] and 80% of internal documents acknowledge that climate change is real and human-caused, yet only 12% of advertorials do so, with 81% instead expressing doubt. We conclude that ExxonMobil contributed to advancing climate science—by way of its scientists’ academic publications—but promoted doubt about it in advertorials.”
Link to the study is here: ExxonMobil science belies company’s public position
Wow! 83%! This percentage includes papers submitted decades ago, before the link between CO2 emissions and global warming was as solidly established as it has recently become. ExxonMobil’s scientific consensus evolved in tandem with the strengthening of the AGW hypothesis in the greater earth science community. But the public face of ExxonMobil has made the science politically moot.
Sowing DOUBT has been the winning strategy of ExxonMobil. Doubt, as the paper points out, comes in four guises, in ascending order of criticality to policy: (1) is it real? (2) is human activity the main cause of it? (3) is it serious? (4) can we do anything about it without bringing about economic collapse?
Effects on public perception:
As to (1, is it real?), Nature has spoken, and even a large plurality of the American public (majorities in other advanced countries) have got the message: it’s real.
As to (2, contribution of human activity), even many Republicans in the U.S. Congress(!) have accepted it and are (very) quietly working on the issue offstage. I’m not sure what the latest polls say, but there’s little doubt that there’s been a shift toward acceptance in the public at large.
OK, it’s real, and humans are contributing the greatest proportion of it, but. . . .
(3, is it serious?), that’s where the fossil fuel spin machine gets momentum. Who knows how serious it will be? The current effects may be bad, but not that bad. Some droughts, some wildfire, some floods, some hurricanes. . . and that distance Third World is getting the worst of it. So let’s just wait and see before we do anything drastic. Which brings us to. . .
(4, can we do anything about it without causing economic collapse?): ExxonMobil, whatever grudging acknowledgement it may be giving to (1) and (2) above, categorically predicts economic collapse if we cut back drastically on fossil fuels. This is scary!
It’s scary in opposite ways: economic collapse on one hand or runaway climate change on the other— Exxon’s warning versus climate scientists’ warning. Take your lose-lose choice.
Corollary to this argument is the idea that, once we are wealthy enough by virtue of expanding use of fossil fuels, we can afford any means of adaptation. Meaning, fossil fuel success brings us ever closer to a safe, prosperous future. (And to hell with what it does to non-human species—who gives a shit about what happens to corals, amphibians, penguins, whales, as long as we have our network of Facebook “friends” to share pix and likes with?)
Adaptation is the key, and fossil fuel riches promise the happiest adaptations. This is pretty much the tune that Rex Tillerson and his ilk have been singing for many a year. It’s a cheerful, catchy tune. and only the grumpy environmental doomsayers are striking a discordant note.
As far as I can see, the American public is very open to this approach, to the extent they are even thinking about it. Why think about it anyway, when there’s so much DOUBT as to the seriousness of climate change impacts to begin with? The sky isn’t falling, yet, so in the immortal words of Bart Simpson, “don’t have a cow, man.”
Indeed. I’m not having a cow. Are you?