Between 1977 and In 2014, 80% of ExxonMobil internal research supported the notion that human activity contributes to climate change. But at the same time, 80 percent of oil and gas suppliers instead express skepticism about whether climate change is man-made or even real.
To find out, Harvard researchers Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes used a study machine to review more than 200 internal documents, peer-reviewed research, and Exxon Mobil’s public statements. Recently published paper, “ExxonMobil’s Climate Change Communications Description and Analysis,” It reveals the history of decades of efforts to get the company to contribute to CO2 air.
Oreskes and Supran used machine learning systems to support two claims. First, ExxonMobil set up discussions on climate change in ways that reduce their responsibilities. Second, when the company openly questioned climate change, paid for it, and then ignored it, research finds that climate change is the result of human activity.
“It’s very important for us to understand the meaning of fake and fake and how it works,” Oreskes says. “Our purpose in writing this paper was to try to find the best language that ExxonMobil used to create the most misleading image, even though it didn’t really lie.”
Oreskes hopes the paper will serve as a kind of “interpreter,” revealing the root causes of what people say. He is also the author of Businesses Suspicious, a book that promoted 2014 records of the same name looks at how scientists adopt the propaganda of climate change.
This deception is evidenced by the fact that the company still uses the term “climate change risks.” A computer analysis found that Exxon used terms such as “long-term risk” or “temporary risk” in 2000, soon after it merged with Mobil. Between 2000 and 2014, this emphasis on “risk” is reflected in almost all of ExxonMobil’s “advertising”, paid op-eds in major books such as New York Times.
“The use of the term ‘risk’ is very sensible, because on the one hand there is awareness of the problem, and it pushes it further,” explains researcher Oreskes. “This makes it speculative, as opposed to saying that climate change is a serious problem.”
Similarly, ExxonMobil often refers to the “need for energy” or “energy consumption” to justify its continued dependence on fuel. Oreskes calls it a “changing language,” which implies that the company is the only one that sells goods in response to the needs of the people, as opposed to the oil and gas industry. This is in contrast to ExxonMobil’s peer-reviewed research project, which is surprisingly effective due to man-made climate change. As the company began to publicly accept climate change man-made in the mid-2000s, Oreskes and Supran found that Exxon study cites “burning fat” as a source of CO2 since 1978.
Over the years, ExxonMobil has publicly stated that natural gas can be either “clean” or “clean.” This is the case even though, at the same time, they support the enlightened research of their perceived peers the complexities of carbon engineering and biofuels, which are attractive but still uncluttered to the extent necessary for dyeing to prevent climate change. ExxonMobil knew this was not the way to go. (“If you can see a company that makes enough antiques to use the term white, you can just exchange it for dirty stuff, “says Oreskes jokingly.)
The researchers say the term is an example of a clean slate – one of the company’s biggest threats to clean-up. “These companies have a variety of businesses that allow us to use the oil of the past in the future and in the future,” Oreskes said.