Oil company’s CEO melts down—"it seems bad”—when reporters confront him with Exxon’s own confidential documents showing they secretly funded climate science denial.
I'm not aware of any benefit of tobacco consumption which makes it a false comparison to the deception XOM has been perpetrating. Is it wrong for XOM to keep relevant information from the public? Sure. And, it's also wrong to not acknowledge the benefit fossil fuels have on allowing 8 billion people to live on the planet using cheap energy. There seems to be no risk / benefit analysis in the debate about climate change which leads to companies hiding the truth. Companies that manufacture wind, solar, lithium and other alternative energy products are likely producing emails / memos today trying to justify the known negative environmental impacts of their products - DC can cover these deceptions in future posts. "Settled Science" is at the center of this and we would all benefit from a return to allowing open and honest debate about real science, the kind that is always changing and always questioning our known realities. And since there are negative impacts from virtually all products, a real debate about risk / benefit of any new product would be a great start.
Climate science denial! Oh, the horror! Secretly funded, no less! How dare they?
I’m glad to know that some oil company, somewhere, funded some of the counter-narrative. These companies have been MIA in such studies, for the most part. As a result, I (and others like me) have spent much of my own meager funds trying to help scientists who dared question the prevailing narrative of “climate change.”
PS I’m horrified that I had subscribed to THIS substack — how did I not know what this writer was all about? Yikes! Problem fixed. I’m OUT.
The newsletter is about disinformation. You're more than a tad blind if you think fossil fuel companies are doing such. It's been pretty well documented, for anyone with reading skills.
Sorry but it seems a unilateral article without any critical approach to climate change supposed science and related cost and benefit analysis. You can start from measuring stations that don't comply with measuring standards as per NOAA, underestimated effect of urbanization, similar GHG concentration in northern and southern hemispheres despite the northern hemisphere emits 90% of GHG, lack of consideration for El Nino impacts, etc.....and by the way when temperatures are measured in alternative ways you get a different picture. Then you look at forecasts and it is all based on rotten models, ideologically driven and obviously with a miserable track record. Bottom line: yes XOM might have tripped on bad communication strategy but you should also report the lies coming from the other side. thank you! p.s. you can start with the environmental damages off the north east coasts caused by wind farms.
This is the pretty much the same message as, "Pharma has done great things for public health, why are you writing about adverse events in Pfizer's vaccine?"
Dear Paul, i think it is completely different. On vaccines AE and other pharma failures there is a growing and unquestionable evidence, supported by actual data. on the anthropogenic impact there is much less and the integrity of the data is questioned constantly. Nobel prize winners have voiced their concern on the quality of climate change research. I am not advocating that XOM did the right thing in being so cynical in their communication, i am just saying that the science on climate change is settled only in the mind of ideological extremists.
This is pretty muddle-headed, but makes clear I need to write more on this. There has been growing consensus on the issues of climate change beginning back, in at least 2004. https://disinformationchronicle.substack.com/p/naomi-oreskes-dichron-interview This is in part because there are actual meetings in climate science to come to consensus. We've had no such process during the pandemic. What we have had are groups spouting "consensus vaccines are safe." I'm pretty much done with this, because you have thrown a lot things about data into a blender without understanding the process.
good that you are raising the comparison with Covid because what we are lacking is exactly the same: evidence based decision making. All based on models, despite actual data contradicting the underlying thesis, and on consensus driven by protecting research grants. Koonin, Shellenberger, Pielke, Clauser, Lindzen, Lomborg all proposers of balanced views supported by data that are contradicting the prevailing narrative. And let's close it year. Have a good sunday
“It is madness to expect bad men to do no wrong: that is asking for the impossible. But it is cruel tyranny to allow them such behavior to others while demanding that they do no wrong to you.” - Marcus Aurelius
Why do we expect so much from these corporations?
Why don’t we demand more of our politicians?
Or, more pointedly, why don’t we demand more of ourselves?
We compromise our own virtue by not creating boundaries for the ignorant and incompetent. I do not wish to devalue their humanity, but I do wish to eliminate their access to power and authority.
Thanks Paul. I’ve come to realize that big moneyed corporations have pr firms to pump out the propaganda that benefits them. It is pervasive. How much of our thinking is moulded around propaganda? Any opposing views get managed by these p.r firms effectively. Very troublesome. We’re such pawns. Corporations have way too much power over governments. As I’ve mentioned before, I am vaccine injured. How did this get so political and polarized? I’m not sure if you’ve seen Dr. Phillip Buckhaults in a South Carolina senate hearing he posted to YouTube. To me, this is explosive but realize big pharma will do anything and everything to discredit this esteemed molecular biologist and cancer geneticist. His findings should be taken seriously and cease vaccinating babies and children.
The fossil fuel industry has captured conservative and much of the Republican Party. Biomedicine has captured liberals and a big portion of the Democratic Party. The Democrats have the power now, so that's why we're seeing censorship that favors pharma. Stephen Buranyi captured quite a bit of this in late 2020. He saw the propaganda https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/17/opinion/covid-vaccine-big-pharma.html
A few weeks ago, I heard an interview with senator Amy Klobocuchar where she was talking about getting big pharma out of politics. She said each congressman has 3 pharmaceutical lobbyists. Bernie Sanders has been very vocal about this problem. Now the expose of senator Bob Melendez. Here in Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s green belt scandal to open up 7,400 acres of protected land. $$$$
So a company self-flagellates after sensitive documents are exposed. That is a standard PR tactic and means nothing about which side is right or wrong in the scientific debate.
FWIW, I'm with Richard Lindzen who produced science whose significance I can appreciate. He figured out why certain winds at the equator change direction every couple of years which was unknown previously. None of the pro climate change scientists seem to have done anything except get grants approved.
He was an MIT professor, now emeritus, and knows more about climate than you and I ever will. Him being on "the payroll of the energy companies" is just like the BuzzFeed smear against Jay Bhattacharya who maybe got $5k of industry support. How is it any less fraught to take government money for research than industry money? Every funding agency has an agenda these days.
The fact remains that Lindzen is one of the few climate scientists who has a serious record of scientific accomplishment that non-specialists can appreciate.
There are 2 giant differences though. For one, Exxon Mobile doesn't have any special access to the truth which they're then then fudging. The problem with pharmacy companies is that they do the research and report results, which the rest of us then need to rely on.
Second, there are no attempts by government to compel people to use products which emit greenhouse gases. If you think it's bad to pollute, don't.
I'm not aware of any benefit of tobacco consumption which makes it a false comparison to the deception XOM has been perpetrating. Is it wrong for XOM to keep relevant information from the public? Sure. And, it's also wrong to not acknowledge the benefit fossil fuels have on allowing 8 billion people to live on the planet using cheap energy. There seems to be no risk / benefit analysis in the debate about climate change which leads to companies hiding the truth. Companies that manufacture wind, solar, lithium and other alternative energy products are likely producing emails / memos today trying to justify the known negative environmental impacts of their products - DC can cover these deceptions in future posts. "Settled Science" is at the center of this and we would all benefit from a return to allowing open and honest debate about real science, the kind that is always changing and always questioning our known realities. And since there are negative impacts from virtually all products, a real debate about risk / benefit of any new product would be a great start.
This doesn't make much sense.
What doesn't make much sense Paul?
Climate science denial! Oh, the horror! Secretly funded, no less! How dare they?
I’m glad to know that some oil company, somewhere, funded some of the counter-narrative. These companies have been MIA in such studies, for the most part. As a result, I (and others like me) have spent much of my own meager funds trying to help scientists who dared question the prevailing narrative of “climate change.”
PS I’m horrified that I had subscribed to THIS substack — how did I not know what this writer was all about? Yikes! Problem fixed. I’m OUT.
The newsletter is about disinformation. You're more than a tad blind if you think fossil fuel companies are doing such. It's been pretty well documented, for anyone with reading skills.
Sorry but it seems a unilateral article without any critical approach to climate change supposed science and related cost and benefit analysis. You can start from measuring stations that don't comply with measuring standards as per NOAA, underestimated effect of urbanization, similar GHG concentration in northern and southern hemispheres despite the northern hemisphere emits 90% of GHG, lack of consideration for El Nino impacts, etc.....and by the way when temperatures are measured in alternative ways you get a different picture. Then you look at forecasts and it is all based on rotten models, ideologically driven and obviously with a miserable track record. Bottom line: yes XOM might have tripped on bad communication strategy but you should also report the lies coming from the other side. thank you! p.s. you can start with the environmental damages off the north east coasts caused by wind farms.
This is the pretty much the same message as, "Pharma has done great things for public health, why are you writing about adverse events in Pfizer's vaccine?"
Dear Paul, i think it is completely different. On vaccines AE and other pharma failures there is a growing and unquestionable evidence, supported by actual data. on the anthropogenic impact there is much less and the integrity of the data is questioned constantly. Nobel prize winners have voiced their concern on the quality of climate change research. I am not advocating that XOM did the right thing in being so cynical in their communication, i am just saying that the science on climate change is settled only in the mind of ideological extremists.
This is pretty muddle-headed, but makes clear I need to write more on this. There has been growing consensus on the issues of climate change beginning back, in at least 2004. https://disinformationchronicle.substack.com/p/naomi-oreskes-dichron-interview This is in part because there are actual meetings in climate science to come to consensus. We've had no such process during the pandemic. What we have had are groups spouting "consensus vaccines are safe." I'm pretty much done with this, because you have thrown a lot things about data into a blender without understanding the process.
good that you are raising the comparison with Covid because what we are lacking is exactly the same: evidence based decision making. All based on models, despite actual data contradicting the underlying thesis, and on consensus driven by protecting research grants. Koonin, Shellenberger, Pielke, Clauser, Lindzen, Lomborg all proposers of balanced views supported by data that are contradicting the prevailing narrative. And let's close it year. Have a good sunday
“It is madness to expect bad men to do no wrong: that is asking for the impossible. But it is cruel tyranny to allow them such behavior to others while demanding that they do no wrong to you.” - Marcus Aurelius
Why do we expect so much from these corporations?
Why don’t we demand more of our politicians?
Or, more pointedly, why don’t we demand more of ourselves?
We compromise our own virtue by not creating boundaries for the ignorant and incompetent. I do not wish to devalue their humanity, but I do wish to eliminate their access to power and authority.
Thanks Paul. I’ve come to realize that big moneyed corporations have pr firms to pump out the propaganda that benefits them. It is pervasive. How much of our thinking is moulded around propaganda? Any opposing views get managed by these p.r firms effectively. Very troublesome. We’re such pawns. Corporations have way too much power over governments. As I’ve mentioned before, I am vaccine injured. How did this get so political and polarized? I’m not sure if you’ve seen Dr. Phillip Buckhaults in a South Carolina senate hearing he posted to YouTube. To me, this is explosive but realize big pharma will do anything and everything to discredit this esteemed molecular biologist and cancer geneticist. His findings should be taken seriously and cease vaccinating babies and children.
The fossil fuel industry has captured conservative and much of the Republican Party. Biomedicine has captured liberals and a big portion of the Democratic Party. The Democrats have the power now, so that's why we're seeing censorship that favors pharma. Stephen Buranyi captured quite a bit of this in late 2020. He saw the propaganda https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/17/opinion/covid-vaccine-big-pharma.html
Seems to balance out
https://cowboystatedaily.com/2023/09/16/campaigns-to-report-preferred-climate-message-billions-of-dollars-behind-them/
A few weeks ago, I heard an interview with senator Amy Klobocuchar where she was talking about getting big pharma out of politics. She said each congressman has 3 pharmaceutical lobbyists. Bernie Sanders has been very vocal about this problem. Now the expose of senator Bob Melendez. Here in Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s green belt scandal to open up 7,400 acres of protected land. $$$$
I think it’s deplorable. To me the only motivation for getting into politics is to get rich. It’s frightening.
So a company self-flagellates after sensitive documents are exposed. That is a standard PR tactic and means nothing about which side is right or wrong in the scientific debate.
FWIW, I'm with Richard Lindzen who produced science whose significance I can appreciate. He figured out why certain winds at the equator change direction every couple of years which was unknown previously. None of the pro climate change scientists seem to have done anything except get grants approved.
Richard Lindzen? The guy who's been on the payroll of the energy companies since the 90s....Okay, I guess.
He was an MIT professor, now emeritus, and knows more about climate than you and I ever will. Him being on "the payroll of the energy companies" is just like the BuzzFeed smear against Jay Bhattacharya who maybe got $5k of industry support. How is it any less fraught to take government money for research than industry money? Every funding agency has an agenda these days.
The fact remains that Lindzen is one of the few climate scientists who has a serious record of scientific accomplishment that non-specialists can appreciate.
How is this different than what happened/is happening with pharmaceutical companies and their paid scientists? Where are those articles?
Same same. Exxon Mobil, Monsanto, and Pharma use many of the same PR firms and tactics.
There are 2 giant differences though. For one, Exxon Mobile doesn't have any special access to the truth which they're then then fudging. The problem with pharmacy companies is that they do the research and report results, which the rest of us then need to rely on.
Second, there are no attempts by government to compel people to use products which emit greenhouse gases. If you think it's bad to pollute, don't.