Russell Cook
1) If you were going to adamantly suggest that ‘fossil fuel company executives and the shill experts they hired to spread disinformation’ should be charged with climate homicide; and/or 2) if you were going to advocate that regulatory bodies / organizations have the power to enforce laws against the spread of fossil fuel industry disinformation and persecute those who break them; and/or 3) if you tout yourself as an expert on such industry disinformation while making yourself available for law firms currently suing fossil fuel for global warming damages — it would be political suicide to put all your eggs in the one basket of a so-called newspaper disinformation advertorial titled “Who told you the earth was warming, Chicken Little?” if you never bothered to find out if the advertorial was ever published anywhere . . . . wouldn’t it? When it never was, you’d be in huge trouble if you recklessly continued to promulgate an accusation devoid of evidence to support it, wouldn’t you?
No joke, the collective enviro-activist lobby is completely enslaved to that “Chicken Little” ‘disinformation ad’ accusation as they try to dupe the public into believing an advertorial having that headline is smoking gun evidence of sinister fossil fuel industry disinformation campaigns. There might just be a new development about this – the question is whether somebody within that mob has tipped their hand in the last few weeks to reveal they now know the “Chicken Little” ad is worthless.
Regarding the ‘climate homicide’ idea angle, that’s entirely a product of Public Citizen’s David Arkush. I’ve specifically covered his fatally faulty accusation twice before at GelbspanFiles last year, but noted how his diatribe oddly left out the most viable-looking bit of ‘evidence’ that enviro-activists have in their arsenal for claiming industry-led disinformation campaigns exist, namely the worthless, never implemented “reposition global warming” memo set which goes hand-in-glove with accusations about the “Chicken Little” ad (e.g. in the “ExxonKnew” lawsuits). Arkush must have been given a lecture about that missed opportunity – he popped up again on April 10, 2024 with that same ‘homicide’ mantra in his Newsweek article “Big Oil Could Face Homicide Charges,” where he offers the following (with clickable links):
… the “Information Council for the Environment” set out to “Reposition global warming as theory (not fact)” through, for example, advertisements comparing concerns about climate change to “Chicken Little’s hysteria about the sky falling.” This conduct did not just violate every principle of human decency; according to dozens of civil lawsuits cases brought by cities and states across the country, it violated the law, as well. ….. As a growing number of legal experts, scientists, and former prosecutors have recently begun positing, the fossil fuel industry’s knowing generation and coverup of the climate crisis may constitute a range of criminal offenses. … They could even support charges of homicide.
Right. David Arkush would have people charged with homicide based on a rejected proposal for a public relations campaign that never operated on a directive to ‘reposition’ anything, and based on a newspaper ‘advertorial’ that was never published anywhere. And how does Arkush aim a political suicide gun at his own head on this? The first two clickable links there are the same, going to the same Union of Concerned Scientists “Dossier #5” which the Sher Edling law firm is enslaved to for its boilerplate copy “ExxonKnew” lawsuits’ accusations about the “reposition global warming” memo set and the “Chicken Little” ad, e.g. its Imperial Beach v Chevron 2017 filing. Lead lawyer Victor Sher proudly showed this advertorial ‘evidence’ in a 2017 presentation, in which he could not keep his details straight about them. Meanwhile, who does the UCS cite for this? They cite the old “Greenpeace USA née Ozone Action” memo scans collection, – with the memo set and the pair of never-published advertorials.
One more thing here, not helpful to Arkush at all: Who does he cite in his clickable link as evidence for the ‘growing number of legal experts positing the fuel industry’s coverup constitutes criminal offenses‘? A UK Guardian article about him. He’s the growing number. When it becomes abundantly obvious how fatally weak his ‘evidence’ is for jailing fossil fuel industry misinformers, the number of people distancing themselves from any prior endorsement of his idea will likely skyrocket.
This embarrassment is not limited to his flawed advocacy, either.
Just under eight weeks before Arkush’s Newsweek article was published, the CarbonCredits group (“your source for carbon news, carbon pricing, carbon opportunities and more”) put out a piece titled “Ending the Big Lie: No More Fake News for Fossil Fuels” on February 16, 2024. What was the headline illustration supporting their demand for the ‘end of fossil fuel lies’? No less than arguably a lie itself, also disingenuously cropping out the text at the bottom, which only adds to their self-inflicted crash. It’s basically the same ill-advised cropping action that the Sher Edling law firm inflicts upon itself (hold the thought for a few moments on who the image source is in that screencapture).
The ‘end of lies’ they advocate is a law in Canada making it illegal to falsely promote the burning of fossil fuels as a benefit to the public – prohibiting ‘disinformation,’ in other words. They set it up this way:
The Canadian Parliament is introducing a new drastic, and highly controversial move against false fossil fuel advertising. … it didn’t always used to be this way. In fact, big oil fought for a very long time to conceal, downplay, and outright deny the evidence of the impact that fossil fuels were having on our planet.
Take the picture above, for instance. This newspaper ad ran all the way back in 1991 and was paid for by an organization named “Informed Citizens for the Environment”. … Also known as the “Information Council for the Environment” or ICE, this group had one simple goal: to “reposition global warming as theory (not fact).”
No, the ICE campaign was never known as “Informed Citizens,” it never had the goal to ‘reposition’ anything, and the “Chicken Little” advertorial did not run anywhere.
It doesn’t stop there. CarbonCredits group . . . meet your leap-of-assumption brick wall.
that’s not just an assumption either. That’s taken verbatim from one of their own internal documents ….
No, it is not the Western Fuels ICE campaign’s own internal documents.
The CarbonCredits group would have people charged with and prosecuted for promoting disinformation, of which the basis of their advocacy is a prime example of . . . . disinformation.
The ‘verbatim internal doc’ they show is their own upload from a source they do not name. What is the source? ClimateFiles, the same outlet who supplies Sher Edling with that “Chicken Little” image, albeit less cropped. Run by Roland C “Kert” Davies, formerly out of his Climate Files/Climate Investigations Center, formerly out of Greenpeace USA/Ozone Action, now at the Center for Climate Integrity (CIC). Yes, that CIC … which got their “reposition global warming” memos / “Chicken Little”/ “Doomsday Canceled” advertorials from Kert Davies.
Regarding the countless number of times the “Chicken Little” advertorial phrase has been repeated over the decades, it’s practically endemic; I could spend hours pointing out the errors of assumption in the written narratives about the ad, it’s embarrassing to see the extent of blind trust put in the accusation by people who should know enough question it first at the most minimal of levels when they view images of the advertorial:
- why are some of the images missing text underneath while others show text?
- what does the ad text say?
- why is it cropped at the bottom?
- why does it look like a multi-generation degraded photocopy?
- if these were printed in newspapers … why not show those out of actual newspapers instead of whatever these lousy images are?
The “Greenpeace USA née Ozone Action” memo scans collection that included this advertorial went offline in April 2022, but I downloaded that collection before then and saved them here. The Google Image results for the “Chicken Little” ad always show the bottom cropped in some way. What happens when anyone magnifies that advertorial in the Greenpeace/Ozone Action scans? It shows a non-existent “toll-free” number, and a name suggestion for the PR campaign that was unsolicited and never used.
Same never-used ICE name for the “Doomsday Canceled” advertorial.
See the problem there?
Think about it. Would you be taken seriously if you advanced the position that people should be prosecuted for questioning anything about your argument that big corporations need to be held accountable for damages to the natural habitats of – and possibly for them to be charged with the killing of – Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster …. when the only proof of their existence are singular grainy images sourced from hugely suspect people?
And yet that is the moral equivalent of what is happening here, with major news outlets not questioning anything about a cropped, lousy quality photocopy of a chicken.
There is, however, a new weeks-old head scratcher development, after almost 30 years of enviro-activists showing the public only Greenpeace’s/Ozone Action’s lousy photocopies of advertorials attributed to the Western Fuels “ICE” public relations campaign. It happened on April 2, 2024, in between the above Feb 26 and April 10 “Chicken Little” repetitions I detailed above. Have a look at this, from the “ExxonKnews” website’s “Big Oil clouded the science on extreme weather. Now it faces a reckoning” report about the days-old Bucks County v BP lawsuit, where they offered nothing more about the advertorial image beyond what appears in part of the caption below the image:
One ad from a PR campaign by the “Information Council on the Environment,” funded by fossil fuel and electric utility interests. …
Compared to any other enviro-activist screed claiming the “reposition global warming” memos / ICE advertorials prove industry-led disinformation campaigns happened, this ExxonKnews piece uniquely shows an actual ICE advertorial published in a newspaper. It’s the ExxonKnews site’s own uploaded image, and it is still quite hard to read the small text, but it is genuine. I recognize it, I showed it myself in my “The Real ICE ads, Part 4” blog post in January 2022. The ad was published in the May 22, 1991 Flagstaff Arizona Daily Sun newspaper. My downloaded copy out of the Newspapers.com website is one which people can magnify and easily read.
The mystery here is – again, after the prior 28-year pattern – why this otherwise standard screed at ExxonKnews about fossil fuel industry disinformation campaigns went off the reservation and did not feature the standard horrible photocopy advertorial images out of Greenpeace/Ozone Action. It’s very likely that whoever wrote the caption was operating off a template narrative, since the person predictably got part of the spelled-out ICE name wrong even though the actual official name was right there in, well, more or less plain sight.
Might be just a coincidence – the author of that ExxonKnews piece and/or her editor might have had enough brains to ask, “geeze, isn’t there a more clear image of one of these ICE ads out there in a newspaper that doesn’t look as weirdly terrible as the ones we were told to use?” Or is this an indicator that folks promulgating the ‘industry disinformation’ accusation have figured out they are in a hole they cannot dig their way out of from using those old Greenpeace/Ozone Action scans?
What is “ExxonKnews”? It’s a project of the Center for Climate Integrity (CCI). Who was hired at CCI as their new “Director of Special Investigations” nine months ago?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“recklessly continued”
Or more accurately [in a climatopolitical sense], doubled down.
With current technologies our ability to win fossil fuels from the depths has much improved and that has – taxation and geopolitics aside – made them even more available and affordable. So, they need a spin…. From The Hill:
“Costs of burning fossil fuels dwarf costs of energy transition: Report
The costs of enduring climate change are already six times higher than those for implementing measures to prevent it, a study published in Nature on Wednesday reveals.”
And then they go right off the rails.
“No matter what actions world governments and businesses take, by mid-century, per-capita global incomes will be 19 percent lower than they would have been in a world unaffected by climate change. “
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/costs-burning-fossil-fuels-dwarf-150058934.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAMqJ8aDg34uA2tNr7Ojp7RLtsQekVQ_Ue8nWFF_OxJemwFH1msx1MnSoehG6IpoPQr4LIFxQUKuaxkHOpbii5-SLGJxYyNtAXk1TJA0qfdTk0MGRZYSA-8H0KM04iMYJCQGR_Jpw3TNqG0NNn7C_8njSxJwhdxaad6R3IrUmjty_
Yes, a world unaffected by climate change…. dream on, guys.
Where climate [science] is concerned you have to double down on the doublethink. That will always be the Achilles heel for them.
A key issue in this discussion is lack of agreement on the definition of terms among participants, both on this blog, but more importantly in the general population. Informed People With Scientific Backgrounds (IPWSBs) often apply different meanings than the general population and also than political pundits do to some of the terms.
Almost all IPWSBs agree that outdoor temperatures have warmed a bit since the end of the Little Ice Age. This can be called Global Warming. Most of the IPSWBs also agree that at least some of this can be attributed to CO2 emissions from burning coal, oil, and natural gas. This can be called Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).
A much smaller percentage of the IPWSBs believe that this warming will shortly become catastrophic, causing catastrophic ocean shoreline flooding, fatal heat waves, floods, droughts, fires, and worse. This can be called Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW).
Unfortunately, the Left has hijacked many definitions and are using the term “Climate Change” to mean exactly the same as CAGW. This means that the near 100 percent of the IPWSBs who acknowledge that temperatures have warmed a bit in the last century and a half also must support CAGW and must require extraordinary efforts to stop all CO2 emissions in the very near future. In reality, this is only a very small percentage of the IPWSBs. Some might even argue that none of the IPWSBs agree with this and those who do agree are simply not Informed properly, or even disingenuous.
To the left science is a useful fig leaf
In a 2022 poll of scientists 59% believed CAGW was coming, not the often claimed 97%.
The date for CAGW was not specified.
Over 99% of scientists believe humans can cause climate change.
A 2013 study of published scientific papers reflected over 99.9% agreement on AGW, but having to get a paper published biased the study.
I have never read any scientist or conservative writer claim CO2 was not a greenhouse gas in 26 years of reading. Closest were Berry, Salby and Harde, the Three Stooges of Climate Science, who falsely claim CO2 is 97% natural
A few Nutters here might claim CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, or reject the greenhouse theory, but there are a few Nutters in every crowd.
Do you have any evidence to actually show this is false? This is my biggest complaint with both sides of this argument, one side says something outrageous that can’t be proven one way or the other, and the other side says that’s just flat wrong, when how the hell would they know it’s wrong when the statement can’t be proven one way or the other? When everything is said and
doneknown there’s a whole lot more said thandoneknown. (with my apologies to whomever coined the original statement that I purposely mangled).It’s amazingly easy to debunk the 97% deal. Google 97% fallacy
Also, the guy who came up with that, John Cook, was a webcomic author and artist before he jumped on the AGW bandwagon. His webcomic was called Sev Trek, a Star Trek and general science fiction parody with an art style ripped off from The Simpsons.
How do I know they’re the same John Cook? Because when he quit doing the webcomic he put up a note on the comic site telling about his new “Skeptical Science” website. Nevermind that’s a highly misleading name for a site that’s all in on the AGW bandwagon.
The original 97% paper was Doran and Zimmerman.
It doesn’t say what a lot of people seem to think it says.
John Cook’s SkS thing sort of piggybacked off that. It’s a very cursory literature review.
The people who claim CO2 is 97% natural did the science and calculations to prove it.
You didn’t. !
“Over 99% of scientists believe humans can cause climate change.”
Evidence ??? or just another made up piece of non-science… are you channelling John Cook ?
Yearly flux of CO2 from nature is estimated as about 750GT
Man’s CO2 emissions are about 30GT
The maths isn’t that hard, you know. ! 😉 (it is around 4%)
Using radiative calculations Will Happer calculated about 0.71C for doubling CO2.
Thing is, radiative transfer is only one of several ways energy in moved in the atmosphere , so 0.71 is likely to be gross over-estimate.
The fact is that even if there is any CO2 warming….
It is TOO SMALL TO MEASURE,
….and too small to matter.
That is why you will continue to fail to produce any empirical scientific evidence.
There are around 6 definitions of the greenhouse effect. What is yours and why do you accept it?
There is a small, but influential, fraction of the environmental left who believe that any change to this world, that was caused by man, is by definition evil and must be stopped. No matter how many people have to suffer.
This article may not be taken seriously by conservatives who base their conclusions usually based on facts, data and logic. Leftists have beliefs based on faith and their leaders seek more power by any means necessary
Disinformation censorship is already in progress in Germany, UK (especially Scotland), Canada, Australia, and at least in California so far. Disinformation, sometimes called hate speech, is anything the government does not agree with.
In the EU some old ladies recently won a court case based on a prediction of CAGW. No actual damages. No evidence of CAGW, or any harm at all, unless you consider warmer winters, one symptom of AGW, to be harmful. Won a court case based only on a CAGW prediction!
Correction:
Leftists have beliefs based on blind faith
like young children who believe in a Santa living at the North Pole.
They have no interest in empirical daily observations
and meticulous records of the weather conditions over years.
These simply prove most people have short memories about events.
“Disinformation censorship is already in progress in Germany, UK”
Yes, but the UK has Miss Information, as she likes to call herself – the BBC’s first disinformation specialist and social media correspondent based in “BBC Verify”
But she isn’t honest at all, quite the reverse…
“…when Spring was in her early twenties, trying to get work as a Moscow stringer for US news site Coda Story, she flat-out lied about her past experience, claiming to have worked closely with then BBC Russia correspondent Sarah Rainsford. In truth, she had never worked with Rainsford at all. In correspondence seen by the New European, Coda Story chief Natalia Antelava checked with the BBC and then confronted Spring, who fessed up on the spot.”
…
Spring, for the uninitiated, fronts various BBC shows and has done a string of reports about online misinformation, conspiracy theories and abuse. She also has a pretty bad case of journalistic main-character syndrome. She uses the first-person pronoun with abandon and puts herself – and the online flak she receives from conspiratorial weirdos, convinced she’s a shill for Klaus Schwab etc – at the centre of every story, usually illustrated with some pensive headshots. The title of her 2021 Panorama documentary was simply, ‘Why Do You Hate Me?’.”
https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/09/08/the-misinformation-of-marianna-spring/
That’s the BBC’s fact checker in chief.
I try to follow UK news because that nation is in the lead of the race … in the wrong direction
Would you like to try to pay for the BBC, Richard?
We could use the help
Is that true, or did you hear it om the BBC? My British engineering manager (in Dearborn for a few years) in the 1990s used to say that a lot. I was his interpreter for US engineers who would get confused when he said BBC or used British names for car parts.
Man Day Tory was a tough one until we figured out it was not man days, whatever that meant, but was one word: mandatory.
I would tell the engineers the BBC line meant KH thought you were trying to BS him.
26 years later the BBC must be worse than ever.
“Disinformation, sometimes called hate speech, is anything the government does not agree with.”
That’s a good description of it.
“Won a court case based only on a CAGW prediction!”
Stupidity is a serious threat to the freedoms of all of us.
I would love to argue that case. Where’s the evidence, Your Honor?
That’s about all you would have to say. And when the climate alarmists present all their speculation, assumptions and unsubstantiated assertions as proving their case, I would point out to the judge that none of that is evidence of anything, and the climate alarmists don’t have a leg to stand on: There is no CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming)..
What is most scary is that actual global warming since 1975, part of which is due to more CO2, has been entirely good news, despite 44 years of wrong CAGW predictions. CAGW remains a fig newton of leftist imaginations, not a real climate that has ever happened on this planet.
NOTE: CO2 Does Nothing Nutters please refrain from you usual huge, tedious bursts of “You Can’t Prove It” verbal flatulence.
Science does not prove anything. Science just collects evidence of greenhouse warming — the evidence you ignore, like leftists ignore evidence of election fraud.
Comment says:”NOTE: CO2 Does Nothing Nutters please refrain from you usual huge, tedious bursts of “You Can’t Prove It” verbal flatulence.”
I assure you Richard you are as malodorous as the rest of us plus you are wrong.
My Nutter Bait worked
You really do have deep-seated insecurity and mental issues, don’t you RG. !
“Science does not prove anything. Science just collects evidence of greenhouse warming”
but , you make it seem as if it’s proven- yet you say science doesn’t prove anything- right, it’s evidence which may be correct or not or partially true- the evidence about CO2 is not conclusive
I happen to think CO2 contributes somewhat to the trivial warming- it might be 1% or it might be 75%- nobody knows for sure- because, as you say, science can’t prove anything- it might eventually shrink that range of possibilities- the way cosmologists are trying to determine the rate of cosmic expansion- they keep shrinking the differences- and doing a better job of it than climate scientists regarding the ECS.
So, it’s is possible that the “Nutters” might be right- or closer to being right than the catastrophists. So, you’re over reaching by demanding that they refrain from “you can’t prove it” because you can’t prove it.
I don’t buy the CO2 warming thing mainly because its chief proponents are certifiable morons like John Kerry.
AGW is supported by Lindzen, Happer, Spencer, Christy and Curry, all Ph.D. “skeptic” scientists.
All claim AGW is mild and harmless. I’m not sure about Curry but she doesn’t seem to believe in CAGW. I can’t read minds nut I hope their AGW beliefs are based on evidence, not faith.
I have found more evidence to support AGW than natural warming but that doesn’t mean AGW is the primary cause. Natural warming is tough to estimate because cloudiness data are not good enough.
Whatever caused the post-1975 warming, I love it and hope it continues for another 48 years.
The right answer is no one knows the percentage of natural warming and not enough climate scientists seem interested enough to find out. Or there is no money in finding out.
So how do you know that natural warming isn’t 100%, and so manmade CO2 warming is 0%?
Manmade climate influence might be -50%, ie negative, or any other number. Until pollution controls became a big thing, temperatures were headed DOWN in spite of the CO2 production orgy of WW2, the reconstruction afterwards and the Sixties’ and early 70’s excesses.
We know what caused a lot of the post 1975 land warming.. Urban thermometers being inundated by urban expansion and densification, bad sites etc. but that is not “global” since urban areas only take up a small part of the land surface.
We know the atmospheric warming came mainly from major El Nino events.
We know human CO2 cannot heat the oceans.
No human CO2 causation… there is no “A” in GW.
Using radiative calculations Will Happer calculated about 0.71C for doubling CO2.
Thing is, radiative transfer is only one of several ways energy in moved in the atmosphere , so 0.71 is likely to be gross over-estimate.
The fact is that even if there is any CO2 warming….
It is TOO SMALL TO MEASURE,
….and too small to matter.
That is why you will continue to fail to produce any empirical scientific evidence.
When Kerry lowers his personal carbon footprint to the level of the average American, I might listen to him- but… nah, even then I won’t.
Kerry has resigned his “climate czar” appointment, whatever that means.
According to him, He resigned to work on Joe Biden’s re-election campaign.
That can only mean that he thinks that working to elect an 83 year old feeble man with two prior brain surgeries is a better idea than saving the planet.
So much for having a viable moral code.
The Puppeteers wanted to get their operative Podesta, in there. They think it is time to spend some big bucks on the climate change narrative, and Podesta is firmly entrenched in the DC Swamp. Podesta is a serious DC player. John Kerry is not. Podesta knows where all the bodies are buried. John Kerry does not.
I see where Biden is going to spend $7 billion on a new climate change initiative employing lots of young people in every State (Brownshirts?) to work on climate change, whatever that means. We can be certain it means spending lots of money but beyond that, who knows.
The Earth is in a 2.5 million-year ice age, in a cold interglacial period that alternates with very cold glacial periods.
https://www.britannica.com/science/Quaternary
It is still so cold that everyone outside of the Tropics works and lives in heated buildings, uses heated transportation, and needs warm clothes most of the year.
Science does produce evidence, though
You have produced NONE. !
We are still waiting. !
More actual science for RG to mindlessly rant at..
3 Physicists Use Experimental Evidence To Show CO2’s Capacity To Absorb Radiation Has Saturated (notrickszone.com)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666496823000456
Not the EU – it was the European Court of Human Rights, which has nothing to do with the EU. Both organisations are past their sell-by dates though.
Thanks for the correction
I should have looked it up before posting. Now that I have, it’s confusing.
The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and its European Court of Human Rights are part of a completely different legal system to the EU. The ECHR and its court are part of the Council of Europe, which has 47 member states, including Russia and the UK.
If we stopped all fossils fuel tomorrow to the western world millions would die in the ensuing chaos
but.. but… we’ll save the planet and that’s far more important than the loss of the human race /sarc
The leftist politicians would be the first to go
Not millions, billions.
Conservative Texas has joined the crazy party.
Texas leads the US in combined wind and solar electricity production.
https://www.kxan.com/weather-traffic-qas/texas-leads-the-country-in-combined-wind-solar-renewable-energy/
I saw where the Texas grid operator the other day was warning about shortages of electricity as temperatures were predicted to be in the 80’sF. So it sounds like Texas is seriously short of electricity. I wonder if that has anything to do with all the wind and solar they have added to their grid. History shows adding wind and solar degrades the grid and drives energy prices higher.
I wonder what Texas is going to do when the temperatures hit 100+F in the next few months?
Texans should get themselves a good home generator (for those with homes) and should get rid of the EV’s and replace them with ICE vehicles.
One of the problems with Human-caused Climate Change is Republicans are not immune to believing things not in evidence. They can be fooled just like everyone else.
And to some people, if they can make money off climate change, they don’t care if it is real or not, they will promote it.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with wind and solar electricty production. Each has a niche that it occupies quite efficiently.
What is criminal is pushing large scale, full blown, rapid transitions that are excessively costly (but benefit the rich and political), are not a sustainable solution, and is driving the world to One World Order socialism, where we will have nothing but be happy, the few millions that survive that is.
From the article: “Also known as the “Information Council for the Environment” or ICE, this group had one simple goal: to “reposition global warming as theory (not fact).”
Human-caused Catastrophic Global Warming *is* theory, and has never been established as a fact. And that’s what they are talking about: Catastrophic consequences from CO2. When they claim extreme weather is caused by CO2, they are describing a catastrophic effect. So they are not just talking about a little greenhouse warming, they are talking about catastropic warming that will change the Earth’s weather and climate. And there is absolutely no evidence this is going to happen, and there is no way Exxon could predict such a consequence, just like there is noone today who can show such a consequence.
The only fact that has been established is CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Beyond that, nothing has been established, to this very day, about how CO2 interacts with the Earth’s atmosphere.
There is certainly no evidence that CO2 adversely effects either the Earth’s climate or its weather. Exxon can’t hide something that doesn’t exist.
Claiming Exxon or any oil company was hiding the physics of CO2 from the rest of the world is ridiculous. Only a moron would believe this. Unfortunately, this world is peppered with climate change morons, and Canada seems to have more than their share in government.
The Canadian Ministry of Truth has Spoken! You peons just shut up now, or we’ll put you in jail. Dictator Trudeau. See how easy it is to lose your freedoms? The Bad Guys sneek up on you and the next thing you know, you are their slave.
Biden and the Democrats are trying that in the United States, too. They are trying to sneek up on us and take our freedoms away, and they are almost there. But, it looks to me like a lot of people are waking up from their slumber around here. We shall see.
As if oil companies had such knowledge. Now THAT’s a conspiracy theory.
Actually, Human-caused Catastrophic Global Warming is a hypothesis.
Theories generally require much more rigorous science.
CAGW is the ultimate conspiracy.
I’m waiting for the pre-boiled crab and oysters to start popping up to the surface. I Think of it as fast food from the boiling ocean. Who needs an instant pot? Its a waste of electricity.
It’s not even a very good hypothesis given the lack of evidence to support it.
Hypothesis are hypothesis. There is some evidence to support it, not enough to evolve it into theory, but overwhelming evidence that disproves it.
Whoa, whoa, wait a minute, back the truck up… That statement is scientifically illiterate. In science, the MOST scientific certainty you can establish is Theory, as in the Gravitation Theory, or the Theory of Relativity, or… you catching on? These “Theories” never become “facts”, because no matter how long they have been accepted as true or at least useful, and no matter how far scientists got with them, even all the way to the Moon and back, the discovery of even one verifiable data point that contradicts that Theory renders the whole thing False, fit only to be kicked to the curb with all the other Theories our ancestors once held dear. The Theory of Phlogistan, the Earth-centric Universe, the Theory of Spontaneous Generation, etc., etc…. Am I making sense here?
A Theory is preceded by a hypothesis, made usually by someone who knows something of the field and therefore can make an educated guess what is going on. Then a researcher collects evidence, any evidence that supports the hypothesis pushes it closer to Theory, but any evidence, even one lone fact, that contradicts the Hypothesis renders it FALSE.
But, CAGW never even got THAT far!!! Jim Hansen set down to a staged presentation in front of Congress, and testified that the sky was falling, and he had not even conducted the first experiment! All he had was a computer program, which anyone who has ever taken the very first class in computer programming can testify to, with enough tweaking you can make that computer print out anything you want it to!!!
So there was never a campaign to “reposition global warming as theory, not as fact” was never a thing, because global warming never even got as far as theory! Let me think, what words best describe this mess…? Myth? Fairy tale? Fiction? Tall tale? Scam? Fraud? Fable?
So, don’t anyone get ahead of yourself.
True, more or less, but the opportunity to go on full offense here really is what the goal should be. Don’t take your eyes off the ball — the enviro mob has been trying since the early 1990s to brainwash the public into believing supposedly ‘skeptic’ scientists knew full will CAGW was being caused by burning fossil fuels but they were paid big money to “reposition” it otherwise, just like the tobacco industry paid shill ‘experts’ to say there was no harm to human health from smoking. Those worthless “reposition global warming” memos out of that rejected proposal are the literal best the enviros have in their arsenal to make that accusation, and they’ve put all their eggs into their basket on how the never-published “Chicken Little” ad backs up that accusation. Since all 33 of the current “ExxonKnew” lawsuits are tied into this basic accusation and the core clique of enviros promulgating it, they all could fall in domino fashion if just one of them is thrown out of court for centering on bogus evidence which the prosecutors never did any due diligence on.
NOTICE
New words approved for climate related subjects, as first reported on my blog yesterday. Learn them before they change again..
Leftists are always changing their language
Remember
“colored people”?
That became
“people of color”
Now
“melanated”
(related to melanin,
not to watermelons,
which would be spelled
melonated)
This libertarian can change the language too:
Global warming became climate change. Net Zero is now the Carbon Reduction Atmospheric Project, or CRAP.
Also, Climate Change is now the Climate Con.
IPCC is now the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Conmen.
The annual COP meeting is now CLAP, or Climate Liar’s Annual Party.
Their annual report is the CLAPtrap Report.
LCOE is now the Liar’s Cost of Electricity.
And this hoax is supported by Climate Confuser Games, formerly called climate models.
The Honest Climate Science and Energy Blog
Is your blog the ONLY honest blog on the topic of climate science and energy, ’cause that’s what it sounds like.
I reject pro-CAGW articles, pro-Nut Zero articles and pro-EV articles. That’s a good start.
I also reject there is no AGW, CO2 is 97% natural, there is no greenhouse effect and claims that Michelle Obama is a man, or that Biden is large and in charge.
I am undecided on whether Biden beat up Corn Pop.
“there is no AGW, CO2 is 97% natural”
So you reject actual science that goes against your AGW-lukerwarmer idiotolgy.
Yearly flux of CO2 from nature is estimated as about 750GT
Man’s CO2 emissions are about 30GT
The maths isn’t that hard, you know.
Using radiative calculations Will Happer calculated about 0.71C for doubling CO2.
Thing is, radiative transfer is only one of several ways energy in moved in the atmosphere , so 0.71 is likely to be gross over-estimate.
The fact is that even if there is any CO2 warming….
It is TOO SMALL TO MEASURE,
….and too small to matter
—
We know what caused a lot of the post 1975 land warming.. Urban thermometers being inundated by urban expansion and densification, bad sites etc. but that is not “global” since urban areas only take up a small part of the land surface.
We know the atmospheric warming came mainly from major El Nino ocean energy release events.
We know human CO2 cannot heat the oceans.
No human CO2 causation… means there is no “A” in GW.
FYI, jury still out on what exactly the man’s ‘honest’ blog is out to accomplish, as I showed here.
Probably too much to hope for, but those peddling and milking CAGW hysteria ought to face their own day of reckoning.
Future historians must give all the names of those pushing this hysteria. If nothing else, they’ll be remembered for all the damage they are causing. Names and photos. Somebody should get on it right away.
Call me an optimist. Among all the other overwhelming amounts of political news these days, the climate issue is a relatively easily comprehended window into the world of how propaganda that’s portrayed as ‘fact-based news’ is done.
Since there is still absolutely no evidence that increased carbon dioxide has anything to do with observed warming shouldn’t all alarmists admit they have been telling porky pies … and find something more useful to do with their time e.g. work.
There is one piece of evidence that CO2 contributes to warming. The minor change to the Cv of air by increasing CO2. Miniscule as it is, it requires striking “absolutely” from your comment.
But does the “minor change” to Cv over come the increased mass from the addition of CO2. If not then absolutely can stay in.
You contradict yourself. You did say “absolutely no evidence.” If increased mass is a factor, then absolutely still needs stricken.
The number of molecule per mole is constant.
Introducing CO2 displaces O2, H2O, and N2 proportionately.
The change in mass from 100 or 200 or 400 ppm is miniscule, but non-zero.
I misstated. It is Cp that I was referencing. Cv is constant volume and since the atmosphere is not in a glass box, Cv does not apply. Cp is constant pressure.
Before you object, I am not claiming the atmosphere is constant pressure. Cp defines how the specific heat is measured and that includes specific conditions.
Republican Texas is leading the US with the highest combined total of wind and solar generation, and is proud of it!
https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/texas-number-one-in-renewable-and-nonrenewable-energy/
The link above wants viewers to sign up. Here is another link.
https://www.kxan.com/weather-traffic-qas/texas-leads-the-country-in-combined-wind-solar-renewable-energy/
“Texans who are working to save the planet take pride that Texas leads the country in the generation of renewable energy”
Oh, right- they’re saving the planet! We must inform the Holy Father- he’ll sign them up for sainthood! No doubt God himself is cheering them on- to save the planet he created. But… I though “pride” was one of the cardinal sins?
Isn’t Texas a red state, politically?
If so, then their actions are more likely based on economics that political fealty.
Sure, if you can make a killing by harvesting subsidies, producing a bogus product, go for it. It’s just business.
The point is, Texas did it for the money, not for virtue signaling, which is politics. They did it for the money, certainly, not to save the world from CAGW.
Looked it up yesterday. Kxan.com is the website for NNC Austin. Dark blue. Not to be taken seriously even tho the data for ERCOT are likely correct.
Not such a big deal being the largest state with one of the largest – if not largest- population. It’s also one of the largest ff producers, if not the largest- and I’m sure it’s proud of that too. Essentially, it’s proud of having a strong economy.
Texas is 6X larger than its eastern neighbor – Louisiana – at a similar Latitude.
That may be true, but if you split the state of Alaska in half, Texas becomes the third largest state. If we (AK) could only get the roads and infrastructure that Texas has, they wouldn’t be outperforming Alaska.
Without roads, the infrastructure cannot be built at a reasonable cost, but the federal government just shut down another proposed road to open up our state.
If the US48 were only allowed the same percentage of roads as Alaska, they could get to their hyped Net Zero in no time.
Rant/off
All thanks to T Boone Pickens an oilman after he was rejected for a board seat on an Asian oil company and subsidies for wind came into being.
The left has a long history of using the courts to get around the political system.
Yep.
“Deep State” includes “Deep Courts”.
So let me see if I got this straight… Sher Edling is running around the world, filing suit allegedly on behalf of cities, counties, states, municipalities, grievance groups, cults, coteries and whathaveyou, suing energy companies for damages from a problem that does not exist because it has never caused damages, and using as evidence advertorials that were never advertised, allegedly produced/written by organizations that never existed who were supposedly funded by philanthropies that never formed and consequently never collected nor contributed anything, am I right?
You did get one point right, the bit about the advertorial I detail in my blog post, along with technically the other “Doomsday Canceled” never being published anywhere, despite being touted as cornerstone evidence in Sher Edling lawsuits for the existence of industry-led disinformation campaigns, e.g. their Charleston v Brabham Oil. However, the ‘organization’ these ads are falsely attributed to – Western Fuels Associations “Information Council for the Environment” – most certainly did exist, utterly small and inconsequential as it was. Contrary to the Sher Edling law firm’s accusations across their 18 current cases, WFA did not operate under any directive to “reposition global warming as a theory rather than fact.” That awkward phrase was part of a proposal sent to WFA that WFA flat out rejected. The only thing they did was try to tell the public that questions needed to be asked about the certainty of Al Gore’s and the IPCC’s assertions that the science of AGW was settled. It’s that simple. And one more thing, concerning that other ad seen in the above Charleston screencapture and in all of Sher Edling’s other lawsuits. That law firm cuts out the text at the bottom, which I detail here in the 5th bullet point item. Zoom in on the actual ad as published in a newspaper, read the missing text below the illustration, and you see the ad is devoid of any actual disinformation.
WFA was self-funded for its ICE campaign, not by philanthropies. They are a non-profit association consisting of coal mining / processing and coal-powered electric utilities.
Key takeaway in a nutshell: evidence in these lawsuits to support the accusation that the fossil fuel industry deliberately deceived the public is worthless. It is every bit as bad as basing lawsuits on images of Bigfoot and Nessie to say industries need to pay for the damages – killings, even – of those two. When you see how one major factor of the ‘industry disinformation campaigns’ accusation implodes, that leads to how all the other angles of that accusation fall apart.
The main reason Canada’s Parliament is going after what it perceives as “false” advertising concerning the benefits of fossil fuels is that it can’t convince the population to turn away from them. In fact, during the past quarter-century fossil fuel consumption in Canada has risen nearly 60% despite steadily rising prices for the product. And when the country is able to generate about the same percentage of its electricity from hydro dams, it’s no wonder that demand for wind and solar is at best limited. Likewise with the switch to EVs which are perceived as overpriced, unreliable in cold weather, possessing limited cruising ranges, and far more prone to mechanical and electrical breakdowns than their ICE counterparts. These are the reasons that less than 8% of new car sales during the last few years have been EVs. So the government, in its desperation to suppress any facts about the benefits and necessity of fossil fuels, is now trying to ban such facts altogether.
And that right there is the truly scary part, because where do the bans of facts end? What I hear about Canada, your PM considers himself “beneficial and a necessity” to the country.” The U.S. mainstream media is telling us the Biden Administration is a necessity in efforts to save democracy.
It’s important to remember that Charlie Angus is a clown, a charter member of the clown troop The NDP.
There is no legislation with any chance of passing, just a political meme from a party facing collapse as Charlie well knows as he is bailing out and retiring before the massacre he helped to bring on occurs.
canada will improve once the NDP and liberals are decimated
Very well written, Russell. I particularly like the little “surprise” ending. You really need to write a book on this. Your mastery of detail is superb.
Many thanks for all of your support! Truth is about the ‘surprise ending’ is that my daily emails alert thing I’d set up with Google long ago for any article news mentioning “global warming” contained that idiotic piece from “ExxonKnews” back on April 3, and in a really quick mousewheel zoom down into the article text, that “Minneapolis Colder” advertorial jumped right out at me, and I made a notes-to-myself reference to use it in a future blog post. Since it could be worked into this “Chicken Little” one, I originally intended to have just a speculative short paragraph about how the out-of-the-blue appearance of that advertorial was simply an unexpected new wrinkle in this game which only vaguely hinted at a problem among the promulgators of the accusations about the ICE ads. I’d never heard of the “ExxonKnews” article author and was going to leave it at that, but in the hours before I planned to put this post online at my own blog, I decided to do a simple search of her name just to see if she was connected to anyone I knew. She is, and the connection may be something the law firms defending the companies in the ExxonKnew lawsuits could really use.
The only “climate change deniers” I’m aware of are the climate/insane alarmists that insist the climate was monotonous and stable before humans.