From TheHill's Overnight Energy email (March 1):
Exxon pushed back in a report released Thursday against claims from a study last year on its public statements on climate change.
The August study from two Harvard University -- one of whom, Naomi Oreskes, is an outspoken Exxon critic -- used content analysis on decades of Exxon advertisements and statements to conclude that it misled the public about climate change.
But Exxon retained Kimberley Neuendorf, a Cleveland State University content analysis expert, to rebut the conclusions.
"I have concluded that [the authors'] content analysis does not support the study's conclusions because of a variety of fundamental errors in their analysis. [The authors' content analysis lacks reliability, validity, objectivity, generalizability, and replicability," she said.
"These basic standards of scientific inquiry are vital for a proper content analysis, but they are not satisfied by the [authors'] study."
Neuendorf wrote the book that laid out the methods that the Harvard researchers cited.
In her report for Exxon, Neuendorf argues that the study suffered problems with sampling, coding, consensus measurement, lack of disclosure and other issues.
Read the study here.
This sounds too familiar.
