The Exxon-Funded Climate Scientist Dilemma

If you haven't spent last week spelunking or sailing the seven seas, you have probably heard about the study published by Harvard's Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes. In short: they have empirically proven that ExxonMobil systematically misguided the general public about climate science, while they knew better (as Exxon's own research shows).

This comes from 2015, when American reporters for InsideClimate News published a report series in which they uncovered documents demonstrating that the oil company had known about climate change for decades. Let me be clear: Exxon was doing very good climate science, but then spreading doubt about it.

Tillerson's group countered by saying that the journalists had "cherry-picked" the documents, and dared the public to read them all and make their own minds.

Supran and Oreskes did.

I've been waiting for an article that showed a different angle to this story, and I have finally found it. This piece, by Katharine Hayhoe for The Conversation, has it. Why? Because she's one of the Exxon-funded climate scientists whose research got trampled under the PR machine.

Hayhoe article describes her (very good) experience at Exxon, and her unawareness of the company's activities to stir public opinion. She also goes through her research on methane (a very important topic) and why that wasn't controversial or susceptible to censorship by the oil group.

However, what I found really interesting was the last part of the text. Here, the Hayhoe asks herself, and the rest of the scientific community, whether accepting funds from companies like Exxon should be ethically acceptable. Sure, you can make good science, where's the limit?

Working for the media, I can really sympathize with the author. We also are in an ethically unstable position, and we have to check where our money comes from. I have to say I disagree with her conclusion, but the fact that the question is asked publicly deserves our attention and our debate.