Office of the U. S. Global Change Research Program
September 26, 2002
Lee R. Raymond
Chairman and Chief Executive
ExxonMobil Corp.
5959 Las Colinas Blvd.
Irving, TX 75039
RE: With regard to the ExxonMobil facsimile on February 6, 2001 from Dr. A. G. Randol to Mr.
John Howard of the Council on Environmental Quality
Dear Mr. Raymond:
As former director of the National Assessment Coordination Office of the US Global Change
Research Program, I am writing to you in order to provide a response to the critical comments
from ExxonMobil about the US National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate
Variability and Change. In that the National Assessment report provided the basis for the US
National Communication released in June, I feel it important to clarify the issues and specifically
address a number of the criticisms.
On August 10, 2000, ExxonMobil ran an advertisement in the Washington Post entitled
“Political cart before a scientific horse” that was severely critical of the draft synthesis report1. In
partial fulfillment of a Congressional call for periodic assessments in the Global Change
Research Act of 1990, the preparation of this report had, at this point, been in progress for
several years under the leadership of a federal advisory committee.
Without having participated in the Federal Register review process that had led up to the draft
report being made available for public comment (after two rounds of technical review), nor
having participated in the public meetings discussing the draft report and its contents until the
very end, the ExxonMobil proceeded to make a number of charges in the advertisement,
generally based on rather poor understanding of what was being done and why the National
Assessment was being undertaken.

1

This was actually not the first involvement of ExxonMobil regarding the National Assessment; a few years ago an
executive in Exxon’s Gulf Coast region reportedly tried actively to halt the participation of the EPA’s Gulf Coast
laboratory in the EPA’s support for the Gulf Coast assessment led by Southern University on behalf of four
Historically Black Colleges and Universities. EPA headquarters ensured the effort proceeded.

Office of the U. S. Global Change Research Program
400 Virginia Avenue, SW, Suite 750
Washington, D.C. 20024
Tel: 202-314-2233; Fax: 202-488-8681
Web: http://www.usgcrp.gov
email: mmaccrac@usgcrp.gov

 With respect to general tone of the advertisement, ExxonMobil charged that the report was a
“political document” and “not objective.” Actual examination of the report would have shown
that this report was prepared by a panel of experts having no political connections and that the
report had been very carefully reviewed by technical experts to ensure objectivity. The federal
advisory committee, officially named the National Assessment Synthesis Team (NAST), was
composed of widely recognized scientific and economic experts from universities, industry,
NGO, and government centers and institutions. The NAST was in turn overseen by a review
panel under the auspices of the President’s National Science and Technology Council, and
included two Nobel prize winners, among other leading figures.
In that the report neither recommended any policies nor specifically concerned the Kyoto
Protocol that was being discussed by the Presidential candidates, it is not at all obvious how the
document was a case of “the administration [seeking] to gain support for its own policies, which
could damage the economy and employment …” As a reading of the report would have made
evident, the whole intent of the report was to provide information to facilitate adaptation to the
emerging and projected changes so as to reduce potential damages and limit damage to the
economy. [I should add that, as for others, it will be important for ExxonMobil to be taking
account of the changing climate to ensure early preparation and effective adaptation to avoid the
most severe consequences.]
As a general conclusion, the ExxonMobil advertisement advocated more research while saying it
would be too expensive to deal with the problem. The National Assessment did indeed
recommend more research, but at the same time indicated that there is sufficient knowledge to
justify consideration of steps to adapt to the changes in climate now underway and that are
inevitable as a result of the world’s present commitment to use of fossil fuels for energy. In my
earlier experience, arguing for study of adaptation had been a position of industry2, but now when
this was attempted, ExxonMobil argued this was premature. Roughly, this is equivalent to
turning your back on the future and putting your head in the sand—with this position, it is no
wonder ExxonMobil is the target of environmental and shareholder critics.
In addition to offering general criticisms, the ExxonMobil advertisement made several specific
comments about the state of the science. The criticisms are quoted below, accompanied by a
response:

2

Indeed, Dr. Brian Flannery of ExxonMobil asked for a study to “augment and contribute to the IPCC” (just as the
US National Assessment was designed to do) in his June 20, 2001 letter to Dr. Ralph Cicerone concerning the June
2001 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study. The National Assessment was just such a study, which was why
its findings were endorsed in the NAS report, which is clearly evident if, as the Flannery letter urged, “interested
people will read the full report.”

Office of the U. S. Global Change Research Program
400 Virginia Avenue, SW, Suite 750
Washington, D.C. 20024
Tel: 202-314-2233; Fax: 202-488-8681
Web: http://www.usgcrp.gov
email: mmaccrac@usgcrp.gov

 1. Advertisement: Climate models “are not yet capable of predicting Earth’s global
climate.”
Response: A reading of both the national assessment report and the reports of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC3) makes clear that scientists are
not claiming to make predictions—it is widely agreed that models cannot predict
ahead exactly what will happen over the coming century. Instead, the scientific
community is using models to construct projections; that is, plausible what-if
estimations of what the future might look like. Based on their ability to represent the
major features of the climate’s behavior, these models are quite capable of doing
this. I rather imagine that each of you constructs what-if scenarios all the time—
what if the price of oil goes over $30 per barrel; what if there is a war in the Middle
East, etc.? As the National Assessment report made clear: “Scenarios are plausible
alternative futures—each an example of what might happen under particular
assumptions. Scenarios are not specific predictions or forecasts. Rather scenarios
provide a starting point for examining questions about an uncertain future and can
help us visualize alternative futures in concrete and human terms. The military and
industry frequently use these powerful tools for future planning in high-stakes
situations. Using scenarios helps to identify vulnerabilities and plan for
contingencies” (page 4).S
2. Advertisement: “Today’s global models simply don’t work at the regional level. For
example, one of the report models says the Great Lakes’ water level will be five feet
lower; the other says it will be one foot higher (italics in original).”
Response: Studies reported in the IPCC report indicate that climate models generally
give quite similar results when evaluated at the subcontinental level. Indeed, there
are shortcomings in the capabilities of climate models for representing the details of
prospective changes at the regional level (where a region is roughly the size of one
to a few states), but the types of shortcomings mainly concern whether the change is
likely to be a bit larger or smaller than the mean change for that continent or that
area of the subcontinent—not at all whether there will be no change or a significant
change. Thus, while the models may not give reliable indications of whether the
temperature rise in Detroit will be larger or smaller than in Atlanta, both will be
warming substantially. With respect to the specific example for the Great Lakes that
is mentioned in the advertisement, a bit of reading would have shown that this study
actually used the results from 9 models (the use of 2 was the minimum encouraged
for all the activities in the National Assessment) and 8 of the 9 gave a substantial
decrease in Great Lakes’ levels. That we included results from models with
differing results in our analysis is exactly what one is supposed to do in a scenario
3

IPCC brings together the scientific expertise of about 150 countries, producing consensus assessments on a periodic
basis. A copy of the most recent IPCC Synthesis Report is included for your information.

Office of the U. S. Global Change Research Program
400 Virginia Avenue, SW, Suite 750
Washington, D.C. 20024
Tel: 202-314-2233; Fax: 202-488-8681
Web: http://www.usgcrp.gov
email: mmaccrac@usgcrp.gov

 analysis—consider the range of possible outcomes so as to not too narrowly
constrain the consideration of vulnerabilities. Does ExxonMobil only consider
scenarios that foresee a single future possibility, and only when it knows exactly
what the future will bring? When ExxonMobil prepares to develop an oil field, do
your experts know exactly how much each well will produce, or do they convey a
sense of things to you and consider various possibilities?
3. Advertisement: “The overview report was released even though most of the
underlying reports and analyses are not yet available for scientific peer review or
public comment.”
Response: In that assessment and analysis is really an ongoing process and not
something that will or should ever end, the report of the NAST was a snapshot of
what was known at the time, taken after many of the underlying assessment
activities had prepared their findings and, although only some had been published,
many had also been reported in journal publications and in other traditional ways. In
addition, the Foundation report of 600 pages prepared by the NAST provided all the
detailed backup information to substantiate the summary provided in the Overview
report of 150 pages. The chapters of the Foundation report, which were not even
mentioned in the advertisement, are full, peer-reviewed articles with extensive
references for all the findings. These full scientific papers were prepared in close
association with the various regional and sectoral assessment teams (you can go to
our Web site http://www.usgcrp.gov and under Assessments gain access to all the
materials). This Foundation report had simultaneously been released for public
comment, and so everything in the Overview report was fully documented and
reviewed both technically and as part of the public review process. Quite clearly, in
contradiction to the ExxonMobil charge, all the information that would have been
needed for review of the Overview document was readily available (and, in any
case, ExxonMobil never even asked for such materials or participated in the
review).
I could go on, but I hope this suffices to make clear that more thorough consideration and
investigation should have been given by ExxonMobil to the content and process of the National
Assessment.
The National Assessment report was delivered to Congress in November 2000 at the conclusion
of NAST’s term, which had been extended from earlier in the year in order to provide time to
fulfill the many review requirements that were called for and completed. The report was later
published by Cambridge University Press. So that you can personally consider the
appropriateness of the National Assessment’s findings, I am including a copy of the final report
and a copy of the advertisement for your consideration.

Office of the U. S. Global Change Research Program
400 Virginia Avenue, SW, Suite 750
Washington, D.C. 20024
Tel: 202-314-2233; Fax: 202-488-8681
Web: http://www.usgcrp.gov
email: mmaccrac@usgcrp.gov

 The next step in the attack on the National Assessment came in February 2001, when Dr. A. G.
Randol of ExxonMobil sent a facsimile to the new Administration urging the termination of the
involvement of four individuals involved in climate change activities (see
http://www.nrdc.org/media/docs/020403.pdf as it was the NRDC that made this communication
available). ExxonMobil has already been criticized publicly for urging that Dr. Robert Watson,
who had become chief scientist at the World Bank after a career in NASA and the White House
Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), not be supported by the US in the IPCC
elections. For those interested in keeping the IPCC focus on science and uncertainties about
climate change, it did seem strange that an economist was ultimately supported by the US and
elected in the spring of 2002. Of the other three named in Randol’s communication, Dr. Rosina
Bierbaum’s appointment at OSTP was, not surprisingly, not renewed (she is now dean of the
Department of Natural Resources at the University of Michigan); and Mr. Jeffrey Miotke, who
was a career foreign service officer simply representing our country’s official position, was
essentially harassed out of that position (rather a harsh penalty for a very capable public servant
carrying out his instructions). And I am the fourth, named presumably as a representative of all
those who participated in the US National Assessment.
Although the Administration had originally distanced itself somewhat from the National
Assessment, discussions held as part of my on-going participation in the preparation of the
Impacts and Adaptation chapter of the recent US Climate Action Report 2002 , led the
Administration to come to accept the National Assessment findings as the basis of that chapter in
the report (the report can be viewed at
http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/publications/car/index.html). While release of the report by
the Administration in late May was accompanied by a bit of a media stir, the results of the
National Assessment that were presented had been carefully reviewed and approved by all the
agencies and by the key personnel in the Executive Office. I would particularly urge you to also
read Chapter 6 in order to see how carefully the National Assessment and the Climate Action
Report present the state of knowledge and uncertainties and then offer a range of insights about
the types of changes and impacts that those of us in the US are likely to experience. ExxonMobil
can choose to ignore such information (e.g., how conditions in Alaska are rather rapidly changing
and the implications this will have), but it will be doing so at its economic peril for it is very
clear that the climate in coming decades will be different, perhaps substantially different than in
the past.
As an example of how various groups are responding to the findings of the National Assessment,
the US Department of Transportation (DOT) is convening a workshop on October 1-2 to
consider the vulnerability to climate variations and change of the US transportation infrastructure
and operations. As just a few examples of the types of issues that are expected to be considered,
DOT has recognized that many airports, rail lines, roads, and port facilities are located in lowlying coastal areas exposed to rising sea level and increasing storm surge heights, that an
increased incidence of heavy rains (a trend already evident during the 20th century) may increase
Office of the U. S. Global Change Research Program
400 Virginia Avenue, SW, Suite 750
Washington, D.C. 20024
Tel: 202-314-2233; Fax: 202-488-8681
Web: http://www.usgcrp.gov
email: mmaccrac@usgcrp.gov

 the scour below bridges, that the lower levels of the Great Lakes and some river systems are
likely to cause problems for barge and ship traffic, and so forth. The objective of the workshop is
to identify potential threats and then figure out what more information and what types of
approaches could help to alleviate potential damages and ensure effective investment of
transportation resources. Having the details of exactly when and how the changes will occur is
not necessary for consideration of potential vulnerabilities and possible approaches to
amelioration, and those participating are coming not to argue about uncertainties, but to figure
out how even uncertain knowledge can be considered in their planning.
With the conclusion of the overall assessment activities, my assignment with the USGCRP will
be ending at the end of September; at that point, the last of the “ExxonMobil Four” will be out of
the Administration. For your information, my undergraduate degree is in engineering from
Princeton, my Ph.D. is in Applied Science from the University of California, and I have been
employed by the University of California’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory for 34
years, leading work in my research areas of air quality and climate modeling for 25 years prior to
coming to Washington to assist the US Global Change Research Program starting in 1993. For
the National Assessment, which began in 1997, my role as executive director of the National
Assessment Coordination Office was as a facilitator, helping to coordinate the work of the
synthesis panel referred to above and more than a score of regional and sectoral assessments that
were also underway.
While my departure may be satisfying to ExxonMobil, I can assure you that this will not make
the scientific challenge of climate change and its impacts go away. That 150 countries
unanimously agree about the science of this issue is not because of some “green” conspiracy, but
because of the solid scientific underpinning for this issue. Certainly, there are uncertainties, but
decisions are made under uncertainty all the time--that is what executives are well paid to do. In
this case, ExxonMobil is on the wrong side of the international scientific community, the wrong
side of the findings of all the world’s leading academies of science, and the wrong side of
virtually all of the world’s countries as expressed, without dissent, in the IPCC reports. As well,
ExxonMobil may well find itself having to comply with the Kyoto Protocol in its international
operations even if it has discouraged movement on the issue here in the US. To call
ExxonMobil’s position out of the mainstream is thus a gross understatement. There can be all
kinds of perspectives about what one might or might not do to start to limit the extent of the
change4, but to be in opposition to the key scientific findings is rather appalling for such an
established and scientific organization.

4

While a range of positions is possible, it seems particularly strange that ExxonMobil takes the position that it does
in that future global warming will be caused most by emissions from use of coal rather than by emissions from use of
petroleum or natural gas.

Office of the U. S. Global Change Research Program
400 Virginia Avenue, SW, Suite 750
Washington, D.C. 20024
Tel: 202-314-2233; Fax: 202-488-8681
Web: http://www.usgcrp.gov
email: mmaccrac@usgcrp.gov

 I offer this advice to you in remembrance of my great grandfather, Samuel Calvin Tate Dodd,
who a century ago was legal counsel to John D. Rockefeller (notably, he took no stock to ensure
his opinions would not be tainted by the economic implications of his advice). What I rather
imagine he would say is that you are on the wrong side of history, and you need to find a way to
change your position. The Bishops of the Catholic Church have put out a very thoughtful
statement that I commend to your attention (copy included) about what the basis for your
consideration should be. I would be pleased to help arrange suitable speakers if ExxonMobil
changes its mind and looks forward responsibly into the future and the impacts likely to affect
not only ExxonMobil and society, but your children and grandchildren.

Sincerely yours,

Michael MacCracken, retiring Senior Scientist
Office of the U. S. Global Change Research Program
(on assignment from the Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory)
Enclosures:
National Assessment Overview Report
Copy of ExxonMobil Advertisement of August 10, 2000
IPCC Synthesis Report (including Summary for Policymakers and Technical Summary
reports of the three IPCC Working Groups
“Global Climate Change: a plea for dialogue, prudence and the common good,” a statement
of the U.S. Catholic Bishops

Office of the U. S. Global Change Research Program
400 Virginia Avenue, SW, Suite 750
Washington, D.C. 20024
Tel: 202-314-2233; Fax: 202-488-8681
Web: http://www.usgcrp.gov
email: mmaccrac@usgcrp.gov