Category: Denial

Categories
Denial United Kingdom United States of America

May 19, 1997 – an oil company defects from thedenialists. Sort of.

Twenty six years ago, on this day, May 19, 1997 BP’s boss backs away from denial

“The overlapping and nesting of organizational fields implies that developments in one country or industry can disrupt the balance of forces elsewhere. For example, the landmark speech by British Petroleum’s Group Chief Executive, John Browne on 19 May 1997 represented a major fissure in the oil industry’s position, which bore implications for other industries in Europe and in the USA”

(Levy and Egan, 2003: 820) 

“There is now an effective consensus among the world’s leading scientists and serious and well informed people outside the scientific community that there is a discernible human influence on the climate and a link between the concentration of carbon dioxide and the increase in temperature … it would be unwise and potentially dangerous to ignore the mounting concern.”

He added: “If we are to take responsibility for the future of our planet, then it falls to us to begin to take precautionary action now.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 366.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Global Climate Coalition had been getting rougher and rougher on the climate science, especially around the Second Assessment Report of the IPCC, and that had made some businesses nervous about the reputational risk. In the UK the new Blair Government probably wasn’t going to be terribly impressed by BP’s continued membership of the GC. There had already been defections. And so Browne, bless him, decided to put a very, very positive spin, in every sense, on the issue. 

What I think we can learn from this

Capitalism is not a monolith. The fossil fuel sector is not a monolith. The oil industry is not a monolith. But we also learn, surely, that just because they’re not monolithic – on politics and presentation – doesn’t mean their actual strategies diverge very much. 

What happened next

And BP is, as an article published in The Guardian on the day that I’ve narrated this, still, of course, spending much more on hydrocarbons than renewables, because they are not an energy company. They are a fossil fuel company. And if they have convinced you otherwise, best maybe to take another look. 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Categories
Denial

May 18, 2006-  Denialist nutjobs do denialist nutjobbery. Again.

Seventeen  years ago, on this day, May 18, 2006, American denialists tried to confuse the public, again.

Following the release of the film, An Inconvenient Truth, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a group funded in part by ExxonMobil, launches an advertisement campaign welcoming increased carbon dioxide pollution. “Carbon dioxide: They call it pollution, we call it life,” the ad says. [Competitive Enterprise Institute, 5/2006; New York Times, 9/21/2006]

May 18, 2006-May 28, 2006: Global Warming Skeptic Organization Launches Pro- Greenhouse Gas Advertising Campaign

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=CEIadverts200605#CEIadverts20060

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 385.2ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth was coming out, and therefore the denialists wanted to be able to get journalists to quote “an opposing view” for what is laughably called “balance.” And so they reused their “greening Earth co2 is plant food” claim because it’s simple, and seems commonsensical. 

What I think we can learn from this

And this is part of the manipulation of the media that had already been identified by Boykoff and Boykoff in 2004 – “Balance as Bias”. This is a classic example of the way that cashed-up and well-connected entities can game the system. And of course, if their views aren’t quoted, people can then flak the journalist and say “classic liberal censorship,” “echo chamber,” et cetera. So it’s a win win. 

What happened next

The CEI kept doing this bullshit, without shame, without remorse, because that’s who these people are.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Categories
Australia Denial

May 10, 1997 – Murdoch rag in denialist shocker 

Twenty six years ago, on this day, May 10, 1997, The Australlian gave more oxygen to a frankly idiotic (I can say it because he’s now safely dead) scientist called Brian O’Brien.

SCIENTISTS continue to make dire predictions about the effect of greenhouse gases despite clear evidence the planet will not be as badly affected as first thought, a leading atmospheric scientist says. [really?]

Former Nasa space scientist Dr Brian O’Brien said self-interested scientists and conservation groups propped up the “greenhouse industry” with exaggerated claims in order to preserve their respective patches..

Lunn, S. 1997. Greens let off gas over greenhouse. The Australian, 10 May, p.45

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 366.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Australian government of John Howard had launched a diplomatic offensive against Australia having to take on any actual reduction commitments at the upcoming Kyoto negotiations in December. Whether O’Brien had been asked or was freelancing here is hard to tell but the denialist effort to say that climate change was overblown fits in the context of trying to reduce the political cost of being a dick.

O’Brien is now dead so I can say what I think which is that he was a foolish overconfident old man when the climate issue took hold and he enjoyed the notoriety of being a denialist and a dressed up his b******* and leaned heavily on his background with NASA.

What I think we can learn from this

We have to see specific denialist outbreaks against the political environment of the time and not just as symptoms of of old white male derangement.

What happened next

The denial coalesced around something called The Lavoisier Group by 2000. It kept the flame of climate denial alive until 2007/8, when other groups got heavily involved as well.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Categories
Australia Denial

May 8, 2015 – denialist denies in delusional denialist newspaper

On this day eight years ago, May 8, 2015, Maurice Newman (the guy who had been ABC chair and given a particularly stupid speech) peddled his delusions in a delusional “news”paper

“In an article in The Australian on May 8, 2015, Maurice Newman, chairman of the Prime Minister’s business advisory council, said that the United Nations is behind the global warming hoax. The real agenda of the UN “is concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook,” Newman said. “This is not about facts or logic,” he added. “It’s about a new world order under the control of the UN. It is opposed to capitalism and freedom and has made environmental catastrophism a household topic to achieve its objective.” 

James Rodgers: Can Scientists be wrong?

You can read it in all its crapulent glory here.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 404.1ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

These sorts of “secret UN plot” things have been around for yonks, partly because, well, yes, specific capitalist interests DID fund early work into conservation and environmental limits. That doesn’t mean it’s all made up. But that’s too much for Newman and Lyndon Larouche and that crowd to get their heads around.

What we can learn

You can be quite successful and powerful in this society and at the same time be dumb as a rock. All you need is the right skin colour, the right school, a penis and bish bosh, you’re in…


What happened next

Further embarrassments. And emissions. Which is embarrassing in itself, if you want the “sapiens” in homo sapiens to mean anything.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs

Categories
Australia Coal Cultural responses Denial Economics of mitigation Industry Associations

 May 4, 1990 – coal industry sweats over greenie influence… – 

The greenies need to be put back in their box…. Lobbying, economic modelling, scare campaigns, smears. The usual…

“The recent shift in the environmental debate to promote global rather than regional goals is causing alarm among the world’s leading industrialists because of its potential to distort world trade and regional economies.

“The impact on Australia is assuming major proportions, with an Access Economics study to be released next week revealing that one-third of almost$40 billion in proposed mining and manufacturing projects are under threat of environmental veto”

 Massey, M. 1990. Environmental debate tops agenda at coal conference. Australian Financial Review, 4 May, p. 10.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that industry had only just started to push back against green groups. It had lazily assumed that the whole thing was a fad that would blow itself out very quickly. It was only really in late 1989/early 1990 that they started, in Australia, to properly co-ordinate a firm response…

What I think we can learn from this

When they wreck everyone’s future, that’s within normal parameters. If anyone tries to stop them, even slow them, that counts as “distortion”

What happened next

They won.  The UN process was effectively kneecapped. Domestic processes were kneecapped. They got rich. The atmosphere got enriched too – with insane amounts of carbon dioxide…

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs

Categories
Business Responses Denial Kyoto Protocol UNFCCC United States of America

April 26, 1998 – “Industrial Group Plans to Battle Climate Treaty”

Twenty five years ago, on this day, April 26, 1998, The New York Times runs a story, probably not that different from the one on the 26th of December 1997 in the Washington Post. That, lo and behold, industrial interests, coal miners, auto makers, etc. are going to continue to try to – to use the academic terminology – shit all over climate action. And I think this is front page news but certainly not a surprise. 

Anyone who’s paying any attention knows that we live in a plutocracy, not a democracy, and that the ability of powerful cashed up vested interests, to shape policy to prevent policies they don’t like, is enormous. Just because the power is enormous doesn’t mean that they always win all the time. But it means the game is rigged, y’all.

1998 Cushman of NYT breaks story – Cushman, J. 1998. Industrial Group Plans to Battle Climate Treaty. New York Times, 26 April, p.1

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly pp368.8m. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was  that the US had been at COP-3 Kyoto meeting. I think Al Gore even signed, but it was never going to come to the Senate for ratification. But the danger was that in two years time, if there was a Democrat in the White House, things could somehow change…

What I think we can learn from this

Opponents of action take nothing for granted and are always trying to keep their muscles, their attack muscles fresh, in case they’re needed.

What happened next

Cashed up denialist kept doing their denying.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Categories
Denial IPCC Science Scientists United States of America

April 23, 1998 – Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick paper published.

Twenty-five years ago, on this day, April 1, 1998, American climate scientist Michael Mann’s paper about temperatures during the last thousand years was released.

http://www.desmog.uk/2015/04/04/how-creation-mann-s-hockey-stick-led-counter-attack-climate-deniers

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 368.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The Second Assessment Report of the IPCC, released in 1995/6 said that there had already been a discernible impact of human activity on the climate. This enraged the denialists, who were looking for new scientists and science to attack.  Michael Mann’s work, which was clearly going to end up in the Third Assessment Report (published in 2001) was one such target. 

What I think we can learn from this

Denialists are always looking for targets, and what they perceive to be easy ones – what Mann has since dubbed ‘The Serengeti Strategy’.

What happened next

It properly kicked off, with endless attacks on Mann, lawsuits back and forth. You can read the Wikipedia page here.  The science was robust.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs..

References

Mann, Michael E.; Bradley, Raymond S.; Hughes, Malcolm K. (1999), “Northern hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: Inferences, uncertainties, and limitations” (PDF), Geophysical Research Letters, 26 (6): 759–762, Bibcode:1999GeoRL..26..759M, doi:10.1029/1999GL900070

see also

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2167127-why-the-hockey-stick-graph-will-always-be-climate-sciences-icon/

Categories
Academia Agnotology Denial United States of America

April 20, 1998 – National Academy of Sciences vs “Oregon petition” fraud

Twenty five  years ago, on this day, April 20, 1998, the National Academy of Sciences had to hold a press conference and release a statement because climate deniers had been using its logo and type-face for one of their demented petitions…

.

1998 April 20 NAS statement that Oregon petition not connected to NAS  https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/1998/04/statement-of-the-council-of-the-nas-regarding-global-change-petition

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 368.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

Well, as per wikipedia – 

The petition was organized and circulated by Arthur B. Robinson, president of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (described as “a small independent research group”) in 1998, and again in 2007.[4] Frederick Seitz, then chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute, wrote a supporting cover letter, signed as “Past President National Academy of Sciences USA, President Emeritus Rockefeller University“.[5][6][7] 

More deeply – despite keeping the US from having any likelihood of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, the deniers were not happy. They wanted to continue to fling mud, and to sow doubt and confusion. The phony petition was a part of that…

What I think we can learn from this

There are NO – nada, zilch, none – depths of intellectual and moral depravity to which goons like these would not be happy to sink.

What happened next

The Oregon petition was latched onto by the usual type of scientifically-illiterate ‘libertarian’ and ‘contrarian’ as somehow showing there was still debate about carbon dioxide build-up. Worked a treat, because thick pseudo-smart people lap this crap up.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Categories
Canada Denial

 April 6, 2006 –  Canadian “experts” (not) keep culture wars going.

Seventeen years ago, on this day, April 6, 2006, the Canadian culture wars kept going.

April 6th 2006 “open letter” of “60 experts” to Harper in Financial Post Page 93 of Climate Cover-Up?

“Last week 60 accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines wrote an open letter to the Canadian Prime Minister. They wrote to propose that balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific foundation of the […] government’s climate-change plans.”

https://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/979

Mr. Cool and Friends

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

There was a strong (and ultimately successful) effort to get Canada to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol. This sort of thing, with the usual code words “balanced, comprehensive”  was part of it.

What I think we can learn from this

Those who want to keep being rich, and don’t care if the planet burns down as a consequence, they’re persistent and skilful.

What happened next

Canada pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol, and is in a tussle with Australia for “shittiest climate criminal settler colony”.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs...

Categories
Denial United States of America

March 28, 2017 – Heartland Institute spamming science teachers

Six years ago, on this day, March 28, 2017, PBSs report on the denialist Heartland Institute spamming science teachers with ludicrous “NIPPC” nonsense.

Climate Change Skeptic Group Seeks to Influence 200,000 Teachers

“Twenty-five thousand science teachers opened their mailboxes this month and found a package from the Heartland Institute, a libertarian think tank that rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. It contained the organization’s book “Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming,” as well as a DVD rejecting the human role in climate change and arguing instead that rising temperatures have been caused primarily by natural phenomena. The material will be sent to an additional 25,000 teachers every two weeks until every public-school science teacher in the nation has a copy, Heartland president and CEO Joseph Bast said in an interview last week. If so, the campaign would reach more than 200,000 K-12 science teachers.”

Climate Change Skeptic Group Seeks to Influence 200,000 Teachers

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 407.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was  that the culture war never ends. The Heartland Institute had suffered reverses because of its attempt to smear environmentalists with the Unabomber; it was all considered a bit much (see May 4th, 2012 – The Heartland Institute tries the Unabomber smear. It, er, blows up in their face). And so low profile stuff, like sending science teachers loads of crap was more likely to keep them afloat and feeling important.

What I think we can learn from this

As per the blog post about the school student, and the textbooks, which we come to in April, controlling what children are able to learn about climate change the way it is framed is a major goal of denialists organisations. And unfortunately, they have been very successful in this. Here we are 35 years into public knowledge of a climate emergency and most people are not taught or are mis-taught this stuff as they grow up. And then that sets the anchoring for them (see the anchoring heuristic). 

What happened next

Heartland has kept going on this stuff I think and most textbooks are crap on this as per December 22 2022 report.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs