This paper assesses whether ExxonMobil Corporation has in the past
misled the general public about climate change. We present an
empirical document-by-document textual content analysis and comparison
of 187 climate change communications from ExxonMobil, including
peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed publications, internal company
documents, and paid, editorial-style advertisements ('advertorials')
in The New York Times. We examine whether these communications sent
consistent messages about the state of climate science and its
implications-specifically, we compare their positions on climate
change as real, human-caused, serious, and solvable. In all four
cases, we find that as documents become more publicly accessible, they
increasingly communicate doubt.
In all four cases, we find that as documents become more publicly
accessible, they increasingly communicate doubt. This discrepancy is
most pronounced between advertorials and all other documents. For
example, accounting for expressions of reasonable doubt, 83% of
peer-reviewed papers 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."
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa815f/meta;jsessionid=10F37E4DA6517DC08E6D39AD7ED5EC92.c1.iopscience.cld.iop.org
The analysis found that ExxonMobils peer-reviewed publications "did
not suppress climate science-indeed, it contributed to it." However,
they used that credibility to "misled non-scientific audiences about
climate science."
First, there was a discrepancy between Exxon`s scientific publications
and press statements. Second, "ExxonMobil contributed quietly to the
science and loudly to raising doubts about it." Third, "ExxonMobils
advertorials included several instances of explicit factual
misrepresentation."
http://www.ililani.media/2017/08/exxon-climate-conspiracy-exposed.html
|
|