FOXLEAKS: Fox boss ordered staff to cast doubt on climate science

[meegbear]

Source: Media Matters

In the midst of global climate change talks last December, a top Fox News official sent an email questioning the "veracity of climate change data" and ordering the network's journalists to "refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question."

The directive, sent by Fox News Washington managing editor Bill Sammon, was issued less than 15 minutes after Fox correspondent Wendell Goler accurately reported on-air that the United Nations' World Meteorological Organization announced that 2000-2009 was "on track to be the warmest (decade) on record."

This latest revelation comes after Media Matters uncovered an email sent by Sammon to Fox journalists at the peak of the health care reform debate, ordering them to avoid using the term "public option" and instead use variations of "government option." That email echoed advice from a prominent Republican pollster on how to help turn public opinion against health care reform.

Sources familiar with the situation in Fox's Washington bureau have expressed concern about Sammon using his position to "slant" Fox's supposedly neutral news coverage to the right.

Read more: http://mediamatters.org/blog/201012150004

---

Sammon's orders for Fox journalists to cast doubt on climate science came amid the network's relentless promotion of the fabricated "Climategate" scandal, which revolved around misrepresentations of emails sent to and from climate scientists at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit.

At the time of Sammon's directive, it was clear the "scandal" did not undermine the scientific basis for global warming and that the emails were being grossly distorted by conservative media and politicians. Scientists, independent fact-checkers, and several investigations have since confirmed that the CRU emails do not undermine the overwhelming scientific consensus that human activity is warming the planet.

Contrary to Sammon's email, the increase in global temperatures over the last half-century is an established fact. As the National Climatic Data Center explains, the warming trend "is apparent in all of the independent methods of calculating global temperature change" and "is also confirmed by other independent observations."

[tularetom]

1. This moran Sammon must have pissed off an employee big time

Wasn't he the guy who sent the email about not using the term "public option"?

Appears as though one of his staff is not very gruntled.

[Creative]

2. New agencies distort...? Nothing new here--however, it is clear that

the promoters of global warming have not been entirely honest either.

[Democracyinkind]

4. Care to cite any example of that dishonesty?

And who do you mean by promoters? If you're referring to the cap'n'tax crowd, you might have a point, but most definitely not if you're suggesting that climate scientists "haven't been entirely honest".

To be honest, I'm at a loss how to interpret your post. You seem to invoke a false equivalency in order to cast doubt on something that has been long established. Maybe it would help to be more specific. This is the kind of comment I read on certain other boards all the time... So forgive my asking....

[Creative]

9. Many people have a financial interest with respect to this issue. Therefore, one must question

statements that contain the phrases like "been long established," or "the debate on climate change is over."

Even, some of the most impassioned scientists who support the notion of global warming do not go that far, e.g., Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (hacked e-mails), disagrees with this assumption.

Q: When scientists say "the debate on climate change is over", what exactly do they mean - and what don't they mean?

A: It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

[Democracyinkind]

12. You cite the meta-debate, I was concerned with the actual research.

Of course there's people spinning the results of scientific research in order to promote their own agendas, no denying that.

I took your first comment to mean that the people doing the research - and with them, their research - had done anything wrong or unscientific or dishonest. It's a fact that they didn't, and that their research is legit. What other people make out of that is not their fault.....

I agree that one should always carefully examine such matters, no sweat about that. But climate science is pretty sound nowadays and the degree of consensus holds up to any and all scientific standards. Of course that doesn't mean everyone accepting and promoting these facts doesn't have something else on their minds...

[Creative]

25. As evidenced by several of the responses here, many non-scientists are more

convinced than are the scientists in charge of actually gathering and analyzing the data. It doesn't help that there has been a reluctance of many in the scientific community to make their studies unavailable for peer review and then there is the fascist-like persecution of those with differing views,

They say "quit asking the questions, for there are none."

This causes others to ask, "what are they hiding?"

[Democracyinkind]

29. What are you talking about?

Studies on climate science are generally not unavailable for peer review. There wouldn't be any science at all if that were true.

And there's never been any sort of "fascist-like" persecution of any serious scientist who didn't sell out the scientific method for some big oil bucks.

Nobody withing the scientific community says "quit asking questions". There'd be no science if that were true.

Honestly, I do believe that the problem lies with laymen's views of science, scientists and the scientific process. But it's not what you're making it out to be. Rather, it is exactly the uninformed pseudo-conspirational stance that you are taking here: Nobody with any inside knowledge of how scientific research is actually done would write such asinine things as you just did. The notion of a vast conspiracy within the scientific community is just ridiculous to anyone who's ever been part of it. Only in a teens fantasy can such a degree of collusion among scientists and institutes exist; not in reality.

First I thought you were serious, but whatever. Saying that someone is "hiding something" concerning this issue is just a crazy talking point that the RW picked up from Big Oil. It's a shame that you'd perpetuate such games, here, of all places.

On edit: And how many "researchers" cite newsmax in their articles?

I really did think you were serious. My bad.

[Creative]

30. Clearly, some of these studies were not made available for peer review

as it was exposed in the leaked emails.

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=295&filename=1047388489.txt

Everyone agrees that changes in solar output affected global climate in the past, so why is there so much reluctance to believe that it could be happening now? Thus, the real question is whether changes in solar output are responsible for our recent global warming, or whether it can all be attributed to human activity.

So forget all of the hype and nonsense, let's focus on the science.

[Democracyinkind]

31. Gee

1) There's nothing in your link that indicates that climate scientists somehow hid from a proper peer-review process or that they hid anything. I've read through the whole and there ain't nothing in it. BTW several independent bodies - one with some personal friends in it - have reviewed all of the emailed and cleared all of the involved scientists of any serious wrongdoing. Anyone who is baffled by the tone or content of these emails is unfamiliar with the scientific process.

2) No serious climate scientists claims that "solar activity has NO influence on global climate". Straw-man number 1.

3) No serious climate scientist claims that humans are responsible for EVERYTHING concerning the climate. Straw-man number 2.

Really, you're not serious. Your just spouting lame talking point from the denier industry. These are like the most common Straw-man arguments invented by big oil and freely proliferated by RW quacks. It's pathetic to peddle this stuff here, even more so when all you have are the two most common straw-men that the industry provides.

[Creative]

36. Sure it does; you are just afraid to see what you see.

What's important is that Phil Jones was able to see it and has admitted the he contemplated suicide as a result of it.

While you may label solar activity as a RW "straw man," those in the scientific community view it as a scientific fact of reality. Moreover, the graph I posted demonstrates that the the warming trend has tracked solar activity very closely.

I assume that human activity is a factor as well. Nevertheless, the warming trend seems to have leveled out. So, while I am all for continuing to monitor and analyze climate data, I see no reason to make drastic and suicidal changes to the way we live our lives as a result of it. All problems have solutions, and this one is no different.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html

[Democracyinkind]

43. Total straw man.

Either you're hopelessly dishonest or your simply don't read the answers people post to you. Grow up.

And you constantly link to Big oil funded links. That's a total no-go.

[Creative]

44. "Big Oil...?" And you are accusing me of straw man tactics. LOL

:hi:

[Democracyinkind]

45. Lol. Now you're denying that Big Oil is funding and providing your talking point

You're beyond helpless.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/listorganizations.php

Help yourself.

What does the fact that most of your links cause your posts to get deleted tell you?

[Creative]

47. What you fail to understand is that I don't have a dog in this hunt.

You see, I assume a calm and reasoned approach when I analyze things like this. The way I figure it, the alarmists and the deniers both have a lot at stake in this argument and neither side cares about the harm that comes with the positions they support.

However, I am concerned about the harm that they may cause to me. Thus, in order to protect myself, I'm inclined to monitor them very closely in an effort to see who is telling the biggest lies.

You don't have to be that good of a shot to shoot yourself in the foot. But right now I would have to say that Phil Jones, Michael Mann, and a few others at CRU, have bloody feet as a result of their unprofessional behavior.

[Democracyinkind]

48. And yet you only cite people who have a multidude of dogs in this hunt.

While I cite the people who spend their days in the lab, doing the science.

Your choice.

Plus you have failed to cite even one instance or case of dishonesty on the scientists part. As I said, several independent bodies have reviewed the emails (one body consisting of several colleagues of mine) and have found no indication of scientific dishonesty. If you're shocked by anything in those emails, clearly you have never worked in academic research.

I mean I'm a social scientiest concerned with matters less dramatic and you should see the kind of fights, feuds etc. that dominate our behind-the-scense debate. This is simply the scientific process.

I appreciate your concern but if all you have are standard-big-oil funded websites and talking points that evidently stem from the industry then I see no reason in further answering you. But you might want to be made aware of the fact that the people you have cited so far all vote republican and are among their greatest sources of funding. Might want to think about that for a while.

Have a nice day! Let's hope the cilimate-hoax-conspiracy won't silence you or the wonderful agenda you're pushing here, on a democractic website.

[Creative]

49. In conclusion, it is important to note that it is not the deniers who seek to silence the alarmists;

rather, it is the alarmists who have gone so far as to suggest that deniers should be executed.

You say is my choice: Fortunately, at the present time, it still is.

[Democracyinkind]

50. Lol. Grow up.

Call me when you're jailed for believing in industry-sponsored propaganda. Until then, you haven't got a point.

If you interpet anything in those emails as "silencing of the deniers" then you're as seriously deluded as the stuff you write is.

[Creative]

52. So, you are a denier too--a denier of the facts of reality.

At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers

June 2, 2009, 9:42PM

What is so frustrating about these fools is that they are the politicians and greedy bastards who don't want a cut in their profits who use bogus science or the lowest scientists in the gene pool who will distort data for a few bucks. The vast majority of the scientific minds in the World agree and understand it's a very serious problem that can do an untold amount of damage to life on Earth.

So when the right wing fucktards have caused it to be too late to fix the problem, and we start seeing the devastating consequences and we start seeing end of the World type events - how will we punish those responsible. It will be too late. So shouldn't we start punishing them now?

[Democracyinkind]

53. Oh, yeah, because that is the official message of consensus from the IPPCS.affiliated researchers.

As I said, grow up.

It's true. Anyone who has ever studied climatology or a related subject at an IPPC affiliated academic institution is in favor of silencing, jailing, and killing anyone who's too stupid or too corrupt to acknowledge the validity of their science.

Honestly, can't you spot RW rhetoric even when it's so obvious? Distorting reality by projecting the deniers deepest wishes on Academia has a long tradition in this country.

Why do all your links get deleted on this site? Is this also a consequence of the vast conspiracy among academics?

Slandering academics.... priceless.

[Creative]

55. Grow up...? I think you would be better off if you would wake up

and observe the facts of reality.

If the promoters of man-made climate fears truly believed the "debate is over" and the science is "settled", why is there such an effort to end the debate?

I thought speculation was a prerequisite for engaging in scientific endeavors.

He said such execs, should be put on trial for high crimes against humanity, and pointed the finger at their lobbyists and paid pols into the bargain, saying that their actions had undermined democracy.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/23/hansen_dc/

[LanternWaste]

56. I imagine many people wanted to continue the debate and argue...

I imagine many people wanted to continue the debate and argue the world was flat also. And although we may hazard that maintaining a flat-earth world view could be considered speculation (a prerequisite for science, yes?), a point came in which realty overtook dogma.

[Creative]

57. Thank you for making my point.

[Democracyinkind]

59. It's like playing chess with apes.

You gotta live with the fact that they will occasionally shit on the chess board.

[Democracyinkind]

58. "Wake up" is a codeword for "just uncritically believe what I'm peddling here"

Pathetic.

1) Nobody says the debate is over; in science, the debate never is over. What scientists mean when they say that is that the kind of general doubts that you deniers cite have long been dealt with and need not be repeated, it means that all the data is here for you dimwits to see for yourselves, therefore there's no need to further engage in a debate with non-scientists. This does not mean that the debate AMONG climate scientists is over, you dimwit. As soon as someone comes up with peer-reviewed credible additions, additions will be made.

2) No, in classic experimental science there is really only a very small place for speculation. It's not as science starts with speculation. Science starts with astonishment.

3) "Why is there such an effort to end the debate?" There's not - the debate is ongoing; I was just attending a lecture about the tools of refining metadata, so the debate is going on. Just without you denier dimwits - it comes to the point where, when you play chess with apes, you get so disappointed at them constantly shitting on the chess board that you start rigidly selecting your chess partners on grounds of being human. I'd say in this analogy, you disqualified, because you constantly keep shitting all over this board.

4) Again, how does some random quote from someone upset with you denier dipshits represent a suppression of the debate? or how is one scientists venting his anger against you morons proof of a general will to silence, suppress and kill you idiots? Seems like a non-sequitur to me.

I love it how among the pubescent of today "wake up" has become a code-word to uncritically believe any and all RW conspiracy theories that are on the market. And then they come to post this drivel on DU. Mildly apocalyptic to think that such kids are part of our future :-) Scaring, really.

[Creative]

60. To be as emotional as you are, I'm inclined to believe that you have some investments

that you were hoping to cash in on as a result of legally binding climate treaty. But now that Copenhagen is dead and the scandals have done their damage, you see it all slipping away.

Furthermore, as this poll suggests, this is not something that most people are worried about.

http://urban.probeinternational.org/natural-resources/climate-change/global-warming-dead-last-poll

[tabasco]

54. Nice work.

Please keep it up. :toast:

I gave up a long time ago.

Arguing with the brain-dead, that is.

[petronius]

40. Nobody doubts that the sun has an influence on global climate. However, solar variations are

not sufficient to explain recent temperature variations - anthropogenic are the best (and at this point only) reasonable explanation for about 50% at least of the observed warming in the past few decades.

Your figure (from Friis-Christensen and Lassen, 1991) is quite outdated. The last few data points in the solar cycle line are unsmoothed and higher than they should be. Subsequent observation, continuing the plot through the 1990s, shows that the variables are continuing to diverge - observed temperatures are significantly higher than would be predicted from solar cycle length, and the gap is growing...

[Turborama]

41. That image comes from SEPP, which was set up and is run by S. Fred Singer

Climate Change "Expert"

In the early 1990s, while officially "on leave" from the University of Virginia, Singer set up the Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy with the help of the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution and with funding support from the Unification Church (also known as "Moonies," followers of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, founder of the Unification Church).

This organisation worked closely with Elizabeth Whelan and Frederick Stare's American Council on Science and Health in countering climate activism as it related to the chemical industry.<8> Later Singer's organisation changed into the Science and Environmental Policy Project with funding from the coal and oil industries and some support from PR firm APCO & Associates.

SEPP, in turn, sloughed off a European branch named International Center for a Scientific Ecology (ICSE), in Paris, which was run by science journalist and SEPP associate Michel Salomon <9> Along with Steve Milloy at The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC) and Roger Bate at the European Science and Environment Forum (ESEF) (a sort of European version of TASSC) these organisations all pushed the climate-denier and "junk science" lines on behalf of large corporate interest groups.

Salomon was a member of the Board of Science Advisors of SEPP <10> and with Singer, he organised the Heidelberg conference which resulted in the infamous Heidelberg Appeal document. The legitimate scientists who signed this appeal intended it to be a request for governments to heed the opinion of scientists before engaging in the wholesale removal of asbestos fibers from schools and other buildings, since in many cases it was safer to leave it in situ with resin bonding. However it was drafted by Salomon and Singer in very general terms.

In these general terms, it appeared to be an attack on climate activism. It was later used in a conference of climate-deniers at the http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_Mason_University">George Mason University in Washington, D.C. to promote U.S. support. The ICSE, SEPP, TASSC and ESEF also promoted the Heidelberg Appeal at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit as evidence of worldwide scientific opposition to the conference's consensus decision that governments needed to take urgent action on climate change.<11>

The Heidelberg Appeal document was funded, circulated and promoted by the asbestos industry and the tobacco industry, but the ICSE organisation was also supported by the vinyl and chemical industries.<12>

The http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Center_for_Public_Policy_Research">National Center for Public Policy Research lists Singer as someone that journalists can interview on climate change policy.<13>

Source, including more embedded links & the references: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer#Climate_Change_.22Expert.22

[bread_and_roses]

15. Use of a quote in an intellectually dishonest manner is also typical of professional deniers

The quote you cite does not, taken in context, in any way dispute the scientific consensus on climate change (ie, warming) caused by human activities.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity

... H - If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?

The fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing - see my answer to your question D.

I - Would it be reasonable looking at the same scientific evidence to take the view that recent warming is not predominantly manmade?

No - see again my answer to D.

You are taking the words of a scientist describing the ongoing collection of data and the refinement of interpretation as a disclaimer which nothing else in the interview supports.

[wtmusic]

20. But...but...it was a cut-and-paste right off the NewsMax website!

You're poisoning the Koolaid.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Wednesdays]

7. I dunno about "promoters of global warming" not being entirely honest, but

it seems certain posters on DU fit that description.
:think:

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wtmusic]

17. And by implication your posts reflect your experience with climatology

and your scientific background. What might that be?

[tinrobot]

13. Promoters of global warming?

I would surmise that the people who "promote" global warming are the people who profit from making the globe warmer.

You know, oil company executives, coal mining CEOs, and apparently,Fox News -- all of whom have not been the least bit honest.

[fascisthunter]

35. you realize you are part of the problem and you are dangerously and...

irresponsibly aiding in propaganda. You are trying to prevent people from being aware so they can't prepare or try to reverse this situation we are all in. You must have no conscience to do such a thing. It's unforgivable...

My Father always told me to mesure a person by their actions in contrast to what they say. And in times of trouble, you will know who is who.

[Creative]

37. Not really. I do believe that the earth has warmed, I'm just not sure how

much of it is a result of human activity. Moreover, I'm not really sure that there is much that we could do about it if we are.

I'm all for continuing to find ways to limit CO2 emissions, etc. But I do not believe the problem rises to the level of seriousness that warrants the hysterical reactions that some people have.

In short, I don't trust either side in this debate.

[Democracyinkind]

46. A classic list of industry-funded arguments. Really, these are the industtry's talking points,

verbatim.

Makes one wonder.

[Roy Rolling]

3. I am outraged!

The most egregious thing about this account is that Sammon calls the Fox Netowrk employees "journalists." :wtf:

[UpInArms]

5. Moonie Times Bill Sammon - he is a font of rumors and lies -

always has been and always will be.

Pathological liars do not reform.

[Wednesdays]

8. Just out of curiosity, I googled that

Just to see if there were any fonts for rumors and lies. I couldn't find any, but there is a font called "Propaganda."
http://www.fontriver.com/font/propaganda/

:+

[forty6]

11. Fox News, slanting the facts? I'm SHOCKED, SHOCKED, I say!

In other shocking news, the sun rose in the East and is expected to set in the West today!

[DirkGently]

14. Just to be clear there IS NO comparably dishonest "pro" global warming propaganda. Deniers are liars

[Bragi]

16. Is there maybe too much focus here on Fox news?

Yes, Fox news is a lamentable and contemptible part of the overall propaganda machine, but I find that maybe too much focus on this one news outlet tends to make people overlook the enormity of the machine that keeps Americans isolated and fearful.

The machine that sells the "American dream" that keeps everyone in their place includes the education system, the entertainment industry, religious institutions, and the media as a whole. Fox is just a small part of the overall system that ensures Americans remain isolated and docile.

I'm thinking the left may be spending too much time railing against the Fox tree in the huge forest of influences that deliver the propaganda needed to render the population unable to resist, no matter how badly assaulted they may be.

[wtmusic]

18. FOX News is the biggest propaganda machine in the history of the US. Period.

FOX dominates cable news ratings in all categories:

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2010/12/14/cable-news-ratings-for-monday-december-13-2010/75479

In that position, they have a responsibility. They're abdicating it, and they deserve to get hammered for it.

[Bragi]

21. As long as we don't get distracted by it

Yes, Fox news plays an important role in keeping Americans isolated and afraid and powerless. But it is only part of the machine. I would argue the other parts of the machine -- like the education and entertainment sectors, the overall dumbed-down media -- play much more important roles.

Stated otherwise, without the other parts of the machine, Fox news would be of little consequence.

[andym]

27. They are on par with Yellow Journalism

and William Randolph Hearst. But they are the modern equivalent.

[pdefalla]

28. Fox "responsibility"

A January poll showed that Fox is by far the most "trusted" network, and also has the lowest "untrustworthy" rating. Given this, it is all the more criminal that they are abusing their viewers who trust them We've all seen interviews of Tea Party folks who blather on and on about birther stuff or climate change as if they really have the facts. Fox viewers are not critical thinkers. Taking advantage of their trust is morally wrong.

[jaksavage]

24. What did you say

I was busy updating my facebook page and missed it.

[SpiralHawk]

19. Fox = Republicon lies & spin

A shameless corporate propaganda catapult aimed at the American public.

[DallasNE]

22. Where Was The Pushback

From the Fox "journalists"? The honorable thing would have been to resign and make public the pressure coming from Fox management. Fox News has long had a shadow over its head over the way news was covered. Now the individual journalist have that same shadow over their heads by being compliant with these improper and unethical demands from Management. And where is the FCC regarding these abuses.

[Uncle Joe]

23. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, meegbear.

[valerief]

26. More Foxaganda. nt

[Kingofalldems]

32. New Fairness Doctrine needed to deal with Fox

Sammon came from the Washington Times BTW.

[progressoid]

33. Hell, it seems like every couple weeks one of these directives comes out.

Doesn't matter to the knuckle draggers that watch that shit.

[fascisthunter]

34. Do Conservative Republicans who Watch this Shit Understand

that they are being lied to 24-7 in order for them to lobby for policies that are going to kill them in the end. These people are beyond help... to be this far in denial you need to be brain washed or a sociopath who knows they are lying.

[donheld]

38. I am totally shocked, SHOCKED i tell ya.

[Turborama]

39. The Guardian: Fox News chief enforced climate change scepticism – leaked email

Email obtained by Media Matters reveals reporters were under orders to cast doubt on any mention of climate change

Comments (197)

Suzanne Goldenberg
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday December 15 2010 19.56 GMT

Journalists at Fox News were under orders to cast doubt on any on-air mention of climate change, a leaked email obtained by a media monitoring group revealed today.

According to the email, obtained by Media Matters, Fox News's Washington bureau chief, Bill Sammon, imposed an order to make time for climate sceptics within 15 minutes of the airing of a story about a scientific report showing that 2000-2009 was on track to be the hottest decade on record.

Media Matters said the bureau chief's response to the report exhibited a pattern of bias by Fox News in its coverage of climate change.

It also noted the timing of the directive. The email went out on 8 December last year, when the leaders of nearly 200 countries met in Copenhagen to try to reach a deal on climate change.

The email reads: "We should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question." It goes on to say: "It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies."

Full article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/15/fox-news-climate-change-email

The Guardian's pic that went with this article...

[sakabatou]

42. We distort and decide for you

[Democracyinkind]

51. Believe it or not, there's people on DU spreading industry funded denialist propaganda.

Seems Exxon knows its PR!