Jeffers, Alan T

5:14 PM

to me
Hello Steve.
We had numerous email exchanges and phone conversations with both Inside Climate News and
the LA Times.
In all cases we attempted to put appropriate context around internal ExxonMobil presentations
that were in our archives at University of Texas Austin that illustrated that our scientists had not
reached definitive conclusions but recognized the developing nature of the science at the time,
which was consistent with established understanding at the time. We also stressed that we had
not stopped the research but had continued and even increased the amount of funding and
research into climate science in the decades that followed.
We outlined for InsideClimate News our various research partnerships, participation in the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other examples of our ongoing and continuous
commitment to research. In one phone exchange, we cautioned the InsideClimate New reporter
that writing that we had abandoned research would be factually inaccurate and we were assured
that would not be the theme of their series.
We had many similar discussions with the lead researcher for the LA Times article, and by that
time had assembled a list of peer-reviewed papers by our scientists that demonstrated our
ongoing commitment to climate research. I’m attaching the list that we sent to her, but which was
not referenced in her piece.
On your questions about examples of material taken out of context, I would urge you to look at
some of the documents on the InsideClimate News website, which is what Ken did on a blog post
earlier today. There are links to the InsideClimate News documents on his blog post at this
link.http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2015/10/21/when-it-comes-to-climate-change-readthe-documents/
You will not find it difficult to find numerous examples of cherry-picking of quotes to make it
appear as if we had somehow reached a definitive conclusion on climate science decades before
the rest of the world, when in fact including some of the comments around science uncertainty
would have provided a more accurate reflection of the company’s position and would have
illustrated that we were taking the issue seriously and recommending more research.
On your question about Raymond’s statements, I would urge you to put his comments in context
nd
of the time. For example, it wasn’t until 1995 in the 2 assessment report in which the IPCC even
went as far as to say the following: “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human
rd
influence on global climate.” It wasn’t until 2001 and the 3 assessment report until the IPCC
concluded as follows: “There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed
over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.” Also in 2001, ExxonMobil said the
following in a New York Times op-ed” Without ignoring the seriousness of the issue, it is time to
move beyond Kyoto and to focus on more effective steps to manage the long-term risk of climate
change.”
The science has evolved. Our understanding has evolved. Our position has evolved. Our focus is
on solutions.
Also relating to Raymond, a lot of the discussion at the time was about policy, such as the
adoption by the US of the Kyoto protocol. The broad-based coalition, which Ken referred to, was
of many large U.S. businesses that opposed Kyoto, which as you know was also rejected in a 950 vote in the U.S. Senate.
On your final question, InsideClimate News is funded by anti-oil and gas foundations and activists
and based on the inaccurate and biased reporting we’ve seen can be considered anti-oil and gas
activists. I would challenge to you find a single story on their site that you’d consider a fair and
balanced treatment of the industry, the benefits it provides to society and its importance to
modern life.
Alan