Talk:ExxonMobil climate change denial

1957 onwards

So, yet another bunch of unconvincing stuff. I'm not sure how exciting this will become, but I cut it out. Because:

• its wrong
• its unbalanced
• its "news". We should give things time to settle before adding them in here

But mostly, because its wrong. Why is it wrong? I explain this in detail at my blog (http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2016/04/14/yet-more-exxon-drivel/) but take "Documents released in 2016 show that from 1957 onward Humble Oil (which is now Exxon) was aware of rising CO₂ in the atmosphere and the prospect that it was likely to cause global warming." But the ref quoted in support of that actually says "The documents, according to the environmental law center’s director, Carroll Muffett, suggest that the industry had the underlying knowledge of climate change even 60 years ago. “From 1957 onward, there is no doubt that Humble Oil, which is now Exxon, was clearly on notice” about rising CO2 in the atmosphere and the prospect that it was likely to cause global warming, he said." So instead of the text added here - Exxon via Humble knew, stated as fact - the source only says that some bloke says that Exxon knew. Those two statements are very different.

Its also unbalanced. If you're going to quote "one side" you should also quote the other; in this case, Exxon saying "To suggest that we had definitive knowledge about human-induced climate change before the world’s scientists is not a credible thesis". Which is, errm, true.

As a slightly side issue I don't understand the 1957 onwards part. I can only see 1968 onwards in the dox. If anyone can clarify that I'd be grateful William M. Connolley (talk) 08:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Colleague's contribution of new relevant content and new highly noteworthy, highly reliable source The New York Times moved to the body. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I support WC's concerns above. WC and Beagel's recent edits are appropriate. Springee (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I've moved the new para to the end; there's no obvious reason for it to be at the top. I notice HD has no answer to any of my questions William M. Connolley (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• I'm sorry but HughD your recent edits look like a temper tantrum. You are running around revisiting old material that community consensus didn't support ([1][2][3][4][5]). Here in particular[6] you gave a dishonest edit summary while restoring an edit that is not only against the advice you were given here[7] (" just have to accept that the dispute ends here, and walk away. You don't need a formal IBAN to do that, although I would certainly suggest acting as of one had been applied going forward.") I'm sure the intended meaning wasn't "revisit every past argument and edit and revert". When multiple editors (none myself) revert your edits it's a sign that your recent edits are disruptive. Please stop. Springee (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Context of impact of climate expertise on operational planning of Natuna gas field

Contended content bolded for emphasis:

Exxon also studied ways of avoiding CO₂ emissions if the East Natuna gas field (Natuna D-Alpha block) offshore of Indonesia were developed. An October 1984 internal report from Exxon's top climate modelers said that the gas field contained over 70% carbon dioxide and that if the carbon dioxide were released to the atmosphere it would make the gas field "the world's largest point source emitter of CO₂ and raises concern for the possible incremental impact of Natuna on the CO2 greenhouse problem." Members of Exxon's board of directors told Exxon staff that the gas field could not be developed without a cost-effective and environmentally responsible method for handling the CO₂.

Reference

• Banerjee, Neela; Song, Lisa (October 8, 2015). "Exxon's Business Ambition Collided with Climate Change Under a Distant Sea". InsideClimate News. Retrieved January 25, 2016. Releasing Natuna's carbon pollution would make it "the world's largest point source emitter of CO2 and raises concern for the possible incremental impact of Natuna on the CO2 greenhouse problem," declared an October 1984 report from Exxon's top climate modeler, Brian Flannery, and his boss Andrew Callegari...Because the project was so complex and expensive, the Natuna staff presented regular updates, including details of the CO2 issue, to Exxon's board of directors, whose members were drawn almost entirely from the company's upper management. Some Exxon directors accepted the emerging climate consensus. Others were less sure of the science, but agreed that as popular attention to global warming mounted, releasing Natuna's greenhouse gases into the air could turn into a public relations debacle, former employees said. Either way, directors repeatedly told project staff Natuna could not proceed unless the CO2 was handled in a cost-effective way that did not harm the atmosphere. "Their concerns kept getting stronger," said a former employee with knowledge of the project, who asked for anonymity because the issue remains sensitive even years later. "Their attitude went from, 'Maybe we have to remove the CO2,' to, as the years went by, their saying, 'This project cannot go ahead unless we remove the CO2.'"

Discussion

We are expected to provide our readers with sufficient detail to understand our articles WP:READERSFIRST. The topic of this subsection of this article is the many examples of ExxonMobil integrating their sophisticated understanding of climate science into the operational planning of their corporation, in support of comparing and contrasting these activities with their lobbying and grassroots lobbying activities. ExxonMobil's studies of Natuna and their internal deliberations, conducted to the highest levels of the corporation, are very clearly a highly significant, clearly noteworthy example of ExxonMobil integrating their sophisticated understanding of climate science into their operational planning WP:DUE. In order to make this first sentence clear, and for our readers to understand the relevance, we need to provide a brief description of the business problem, and ExxonMobil's response. Merely mentioning Natuna and wikilinking is grossly insufficient, poor writing, and non-neutral. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

integrating their sophisticated understanding of climate science - nah, that's nonsense. Stop making things up William M. Connolley (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

This was discussed just 2 months back. The community consensus was against. What has changed? Springee (talk) 20:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Context of Natuna gas field on the impact of climate expertise on ExxonMobil operational planning

Should the following, bolded for clarity, be added to ExxonMobil climate change controversy?

Exxon also studied ways of avoiding CO₂ emissions if the East Natuna gas field (Natuna D-Alpha block) offshore of Indonesia were developed. An October 1984 internal report from Exxon's top climate modelers said that the gas field contained over 70% carbon dioxide and that if the carbon dioxide were released to the atmosphere it would make the gas field "the world's largest point source emitter of CO₂ and raises concern for the possible incremental impact of Natuna on the CO2 greenhouse problem." Members of Exxon's board of directors told Exxon staff that the gas field could not be developed without a cost-effective and environmentally responsible method for handling the CO₂.

Source

• Banerjee, Neela; Song, Lisa (October 8, 2015). "Exxon's Business Ambition Collided with Climate Change Under a Distant Sea". InsideClimate News. Retrieved January 25, 2016. Releasing Natuna's carbon pollution would make it "the world's largest point source emitter of CO2 and raises concern for the possible incremental impact of Natuna on the CO2 greenhouse problem," declared an October 1984 report from Exxon's top climate modeler, Brian Flannery, and his boss Andrew Callegari...Because the project was so complex and expensive, the Natuna staff presented regular updates, including details of the CO2 issue, to Exxon's board of directors, whose members were drawn almost entirely from the company's upper management. Some Exxon directors accepted the emerging climate consensus. Others were less sure of the science, but agreed that as popular attention to global warming mounted, releasing Natuna's greenhouse gases into the air could turn into a public relations debacle, former employees said. Either way, directors repeatedly told project staff Natuna could not proceed unless the CO2 was handled in a cost-effective way that did not harm the atmosphere. "Their concerns kept getting stronger," said a former employee with knowledge of the project, who asked for anonymity because the issue remains sensitive even years later. "Their attitude went from, 'Maybe we have to remove the CO2,' to, as the years went by, their saying, 'This project cannot go ahead unless we remove the CO2.'"

Hugh (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Support inclusion as proposer.

• WP:DUE The topic of this subsection Impact of research on operational planning of this article is the many examples of ExxonMobil integrating their sophisticated understanding of the role of carbon dioxide in climate into their corporate operational planning, significant context in support of comparing and contrasting these activities with their public statements on climate change. ExxonMobil's studies of Natuna and their internal deliberations, conducted at the highest levels of the corporation, are very clearly a highly significant, clearly noteworthy example of ExxonMobil integrating their sophisticated understanding of the role of carbon dioxide in climate into their operational planning.
• WP:READERSFIRST We are asked to provide our readers with sufficient context to understand our article content. In order to make the first sentence above clear, and for our readers to understand the relevance, we need to provide a brief description of the business problem, and ExxonMobil's response. Merely mentioning Natuna and wikilinking is grossly insufficient, poor writing, and non-neutral. The current article's lack of context is so severe as to leave the lone first sentence incomprehensible to Wikipedia readers and a target for deletion by Wikipedia editors.

Other comments? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)