Big oil’s evolving efforts to avoid accountability for climate change

I and others have done so multiple times. We have articulated exactly what you claim to believe in and perhaps added some understanding to that belief. Why is the word “enhanced” included?

 

No you haven’t. I know this because you have consistently refused to back your claim or even at its most basic define what the “enhanced CO2 effect hypothesis” is. You have even failed to describe it beyond “it is what you people believe” so this is why I am convinced that it is a strawman, which you may have used successfully in the past to goalpost shift whilst claiming “victory”. Rather sad really if that is the plan.

Now unless you define what that phrase actually means I will continue to either ridicule it or ignore your posts altogether.

 

Oooh! Yes there is! It is called “international relations”

 

Oooooo.... now I'm scared.

Well, not really.

 

You were the one claiming that no climate change lawsuits have been successful

goal post shifts

 

and I note the complete lack of validation for that statement - where did you get that info anyway? WUWT? Marc Morano? Exxon exec?

 

Yeah! Well there is only so much education in one day that I am willing to do

 

We’ll be just fine.

 

And they haven’t been.

 

Well then come back anytime you actually want to start.

 

The case is well known. Singer was smeared for his views.

 

You ate ridiculing yourself.

 

Reported by whom? Rupert’s puppets at Faux News? Rupert has been shilling for the fossil fuel industry for years because guess who are the big buyers of advertising and of course it is his “in” crowd. Meanwhile there has been at least one book and documentary film on the role of Singer and Co “Merchants of Doubt”. https://www.audible.com.au/pd/Merchants-of-Doubt-Audiobook/B0BY3D9CVM?source_code=SEMPP30DTRIAL452080323000T&ipRedirectOverride=true&noapp=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIio-nlt6qhwMVFtoWBR1msgdWEAQYAiABEgKAD_D_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

 

“Merchants of Doubt” is a ~ 300 page hit piece on Fred Singer who is mentioned 405 times.

 

And?? Have you any evidence that any part of it is in error?

 

You be the judge:


What was Singer really up to? We suggest that the best answer comes from his own pen. “And then there are probably those with hidden agendas of their own—not just to ‘save the environment’ but to change our economic system,” he wrote in 1989. “Some of these ‘coercive utopians’ are socialists, some are technology-hating Luddites; most have a great desire to regulate—on as large a scale as possible.” 96 In a 1991 piece on global warming, he reiterated the theme that environmental threats—in this case global warming—were being manufactured by environmentalists based on a “hidden political agenda” against “business, the free market, and the capitalistic system.” 97 The true goal of those involved in global warming research was not to stop global warming, but to foster “international action, preferably with lots of treaties and protocols.” 98 The “real” agenda of environmentalists—and the scientists who provided the data on which they relied—was to destroy capitalism and replace it with some sort of worldwide utopian Socialism—or perhaps Communism. That echoed a common right-wing refrain in the early 1990s: that environmental regulation was the slippery slope to Socialism. In 1992, columnist George Will encapsulated this view, saying that environmentalism was a “green tree with red roots.” 99”

— Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming by Naomi Oreskes, Erik M. Conway
https://a.co/6lNmWYx

 

I'll have to check out "Merchants of Doubt". Thanks for sharing. Ties between the oil industry and tobacco industry are well established.

https://ricochet.media/arts-culture...ndustry-shifted-from-tobacco-to-fossil-fuels/

Advertising campaigns for oil and gas companies are using familiar tactics to greenwash and shift public opinion, often with the same strategies that tobacco companies used to make smoking look sexy and appealing to youth.

In fact, fossil fuel companies aren’t just using tobacco companies’ PR playbook — in many cases, they’re even using the same agencies that wrote it.

 

Here's a fine article from BBC that explores the deliberate misinformation tactics of the oil industry. And it goes way beyond misinformation.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-62225696

Thirty years ago, a bold plan was cooked up to spread doubt and persuade the public that climate change was not a problem. The little-known meeting - between some of America's biggest industrial players and a PR genius - forged a devastatingly successful strategy that endured for years, and the consequences of which are all around us.
...
The GCC had been conceived only three years earlier, as a forum for members to exchange information and lobby policy makers against action to limit fossil fuel emissions.
...
Though few outside the PR industry might have heard of E Bruce Harrison or the eponymous company he had run since 1973, he had a string of campaigns for some of the US's biggest polluters under his belt.

He had worked for the chemical industry discrediting research on the toxicity of pesticides; for the tobacco industry, and had recently run a campaign against tougher emissions standards for the big car makers. Harrison had built a firm that was considered one of the very best.

 

Good job fighting the shills.

 

Some of the lawsuits I linked to earlier are for “greenwashing”

 

Yep! He was a denialist

 

Oreskes was the Liar-in-Chief who slimed a good man and scientist for her own gain.
Slimed by Naomi Oreskes – In Defense of Dr. Fred Singer
Ron Arnold
Guest opinion by Ron Arnold

The Oreskes documentary calling Dr. Fred Singer a “Liar for Hire” is a repeat of a nearly identical attack on him twenty years ago. An honorable newsman at that time debunked the attack and my research subsequently uncovered a genuine conspiracy of Big Green money and malice. While we consider legal action against the present vicious attack on Dr. Singer, I submit this short section from my book EcoTerror: The Violent Agenda to Save Nature for your information along with the advice of DeepThroat: Follow The Money. . . .

 

Did I not predict it? Your only source of debunking is a denialist blog site. Anything from the mainstream media? And the page it links to “can’t be found” lols!

 

He doesn't deny global warming but questions the threats to the environment and he understands that the enhanced CO2 effect hypothesis is disproven.

BTW the title of the book is "Merchants of Doubt" but the book (with 405 references to Singer in 287 pages) is an obvious hit piece directed against one man.

 

The post is ten years old. "Page not found" is a risk you run when you recycle such old falsehoods. Here are the references. You'll find some mainstream players.
[1] “Environmental Science For Sale,” ABC News Nightline, Ted Koppel, Transcript No. 3329, February 24, 1994.

[2] “The Environmental Movement’s Latest Enemy,” ABC News Nightline, Ted Koppel, Transcript No. 2792, February 4, 1992..

[3] Telephone interview with Tom Ward of the Unification Church, New York, March 10, 1994.

[4] Telephone interview with Rogelio “Roger” Maduro, Leesburg, Virginia, February 25, 1994. The actual individuals behind the anti-treaty call-in campaign were Tom McDonnell, consultant Michael Coffman, Ph.D. and Kathleen Marquardt of Putting People First.

[5] Telephone interview with Prof. Patrick Michaels, Charlottesville, Virginia, February 25, 1994.

[6] “The TV Column,” The Washington Post, February 8, 1994, by John Carmody, p. C4.

[7] “The Federal Page – In The Loop,” The Washington Post, February 14, 1994, by Al Kamen, p. A13.

[8] “Media Notes,” The Washington Post, June 21, 1995, by Howard Kurtz, p. D1.