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.

Supplemental primary source:

• Flannery, Brian P.; Callegari, Andrew J.; Nair, Bahlin; Roberge, Wayne G. (1984). "The Fate of CO2 From the Natuna Gas Project If Disposed by Subsea Sparging" (PDF). Exxon. Retrieved February 1, 2016. The large reservoir of natural gas discovered near Natuna Island in the South China Sea contains over 70 percent C02. Proposed levels of production amount to about 0.4 percent of the current total global CO2 emissions. This would make Natuna the world's largest point source emitter of C02 and raises concern for the possible incremental impact of Natuna on the C02 greenhouse problem.

This article is currently Prose size (text only): 19 kB (2913 words) "readable prose size", less than half of the length at which article length begins to be an issue as per our guideline WP:SIZE.

Other comments? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC) Notice to: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force Hugh (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC) WP:WikiProject Companies Hugh (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC) WP:WikiProject Environment Hugh (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC) WP:VPM Hugh (talk) 14:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Question: For what reason only Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force was notified and not other relevant Wikiprojects, such as WP:Companies, WP:Energy and WP:Geology? Beagel (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I am asking again for what reason WP:Energy and WP:Geology have been not notified? One could expect that these are relevant WPs about the issue related to the content and development of the natural gas fields. Failure to notify all relevant WPs and instead of this picking up only WPs which may be more sympathetic to the nominator's POV is a classical canvassing. Beagel (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

HughD I am asking last time why you are ignoring the request to notify all relevant WPs? WP:Energy and WP:Geology are highly relevant if the issue related to the natural gas field is discussed. Selective notification is enough for speedy close of the RfC. Beagel (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your commitment to broad community participation. Are you asking for help with using the please see template? Someone at template talk or the village pump could help you, or you could copy one of the existing notices listed above. Hope this helps. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 19:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

We're approaching a WP:CIR problem here. Beagel is obviously asking why you selected the particular WikiProjects to notify, and why you did not notify all the relevant WikiProjects. I cannot see how anyone with a basic knowledge of English could possibly believe Hugh's interpretation of Beagel's statement. However, I have been accused of having a limited imagination. Please both answer Beagel's question and explain how you could have such an interpretation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

We've already done this, above. Stop forum shopping. Also, stop poking at the boundaries of your ban William M. Connolley (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

An RfC has not been done. An RfC is a Wikipedia process for WP:dispute resolution through broadening community participation, not forum shopping. Please focus on content WP:FOC. You are invited to comment. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. This issue was extensively discussed just three months ago and there was no consensus to support this inclusion (the consensus was actually other way around). Repeating the same proposal without taking account the arguments which were presented during the previous discussion is just disrespectful against fellow editors, and one could say even disruptive. Beagel (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

An RfC is WP:dispute resolution, it is the opposite of disruptive. Please do not feel disrespected by broadening community participation; no disrespect was intended. You are invited to comment. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is not disruptive, of course; however, usage of DS instruments may be disruptive when used for WP:PUSH. Based on the edits pattern it seems to be the case. Beagel (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree, this is forum shopping as the issue was recently discussed and HughD was the only editor who wanted the material included. I also believe this is a violation of your expanded topic ban as you are hitting on the political aspects of the topic and climate change denial/misinformation. At the ARE [8], Ricky81682 noted that HughD's additions were inherently political in scope, "Again, the topics themselves are not related to conservative politics but the nature of HughD's edits are within them related to conservative politics (Mother Jones categorizations at the very are conservative politics even if you don't consider climate change issues per se related). " Even if this is decided not to be a blatant violation it is clearly pushing the boundaries on the same day the ARE was closed. It also is TEND because it's an example of one editor who can't take no for an answer. HughD, please drop it. Springee (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

You are invited to comment. Hugh (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Springee, the actual topic ban discussion is at ARE or can be taken there. I'll have to agree with HughD that, regardless of whether the edits by a particular editor are permitted, the better point is to actually the content here and not to simply argue about editors. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: Not entirely correct. If the RfC is in violation of HughD's topic ban, it should be archived. Otherwise, discussion of Hugh's disruptive actions is counterproductive; however, his failure to note the previous consensus against his proposal is grounds for closing the RfC and reopening one with neutral phrasing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin: There's been no clarity whether or not this is a direct violation of the topic ban. Climate change is technically a separate ARBCOM sanction. As such, arguing in the RFC about whether it is a violation is not productive to me. Now, failing to disclose or discuss the prior consensus is another matter. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments on the RfC proposed addition? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 06:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

It appears to have been previously discussed and rejected. WP:Consensus can change, but new arguments should have been presented. RFC's are not intended to overturn consensus, unless there are some changes, such as new arguments or new facts. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:RFC: "Requests for comment (RfC) is a process for requesting outside input concerning disputes..." An RfC is dispute resolution. Please do not disrupt dispute resolution. Thank you! Hugh (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

(ec x3) As you should know by now, RfCs can be disruptive, especially if not phrased neutrally, or if they ignore previous discussions. You now avoid a non-neutral statement by proposing specific text without comment, but your failure to note the previous discussions, and your refusal to allow a neutral pointer to the previous discussions in the statement of the RfC, is often disruptive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Support: It appears completely relevant to the topic of the article, and is a very interesting part of the story. SageRad (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

How exactly it is relevant, particularly taking account that the proposed addition fails to say anything about what was the content of the studies but instead is insisting of usage a quote from INC to imply that the field is the largest source of CO₂? Beagel (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

It does make clear the context, and it is quoting "Exxon's top climate modeler, Brian Flannery, and his boss Andrew Callegari" via INC to say that at the time the field would have become the largest point-source of CO₂. SageRad (talk) 00:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Support, as relevant to the topic, and supports mainstream climate science, follows WP:DUE. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Could you please clarify if you support inclusion in general or do you support exact wording as proposed by nominator? Thank you. Beagel (talk) 04:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose expansion of the Natuna thing in general per WP:UNDUE and oppose particularly the proposed wording per partly incorrect and failing to provide the adequate overview. I agree that studying potential release of CO₂ from Natuna D-Alpha block is relevant to the topic of this article and it should be included like it is at the current version. What concerns details, they should be included at the first place in the East Natuna gas field article which is accessible through the link in this article. Notwithstanding the fact this has been said during previous discussions, the nominator has made no single edits to the East Natuna gas field article to include information there, so their reader first concern seems to be not sincere. What concerns the proposed wording, it has several problems. It relays on the ICN article only while there are lot of publications in the scientific publications which describe Exxon's work to deal with CO₂ issue at the East Natuna field. Second, the quote "the world's largest point source emitter of CO2" is missing two "ifs" from the original quote, namely: if the field were developed, and if CO₂ were vented vented to the atmosphere. However, the field is not developed yet, the contract with EM was ended and although EM is a part of the consortium now, it is not the leading partner any more and not responsible for the development. It was discussed during the previous discussion; however, it is missing from the proposal. If included, it should also include information what methods were studied to avoid venting CO₂ to the atmosphere. 70% of CO₂ is also not the precise figure but rounded figure. The proposed addition makes impression that the CO₂ content of the Natuna field was discovered by climatologists while all fields are studied for the composition by petrologists. Beagel (talk) 04:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

We agree, Exxon's actions with regard to the CO₂ at Natuna are relevant, and Natuna D-Alpha block has its own article. But wikilinking is wholly inadequate. Guideline WP:LINKSTYLE asks us,

Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links...Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence...The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links.

Here, the lone sentence is entirely inadequate for comprehension of the relevance of the issue by our readers. In the context of this article, the relevance is ExxonMobil's process, spanning the scientific staff to the board room, in applying their understanding of CO₂ to a business problem, in the 1980s. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

And this is the reason not to include the information in the article about the East Natuna gas field? Really? Beagel (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Exxon did not just "study" the CO₂ at Natuna; Exxon's understanding of the role of CO₂ in climate was not restricted to the lab or academic journals, it was integrated into their corporate decision making at all levels, in the 1980s. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

And you exactly this justifies proposed addition about the content of the gas field and quotation without integral parts of it? At the same time, you refuse to include what exactly was studied or what is the status of the gas field. Beagel (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

We have room in this article for additional detail on this, such as

The Natuna gas field has yet to be developed as of 2015.

...same source. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• oppose per Beagel above; and I'd like HD to stop using this article to push his POV William M. Connolley (talk) 09:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Beagal as well. Well that and the disruptive nature of the proposal. Springee (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)