When Deniers Deny Their Own

authordefault
on

Who can you trust, if not your own advisers? That is the inconvenient question raised by NYT reporter Andrew C. Revkin in a newly published article that reveals the extent to which the coal and oil industries ignored the advice of their own scientists on the question of climateย change.

The Global Climate Coalition (how’s that for an Orwellian name?), an industry-funded group that spent years vehemently contesting any evidence linking anthropogenic activity to climate change, found itself in the uncomfortable position of rejecting its own expertsโ€™ recommendations when they reached the inevitable conclusion that the contribution of manmade greenhouse gas emissions to climate change โ€œcould not be refuted.โ€

Thatโ€™s right: even the scientists that these companies had consistently trotted out to discredit the findings of the IPCC could no longer deny the truth when faced with the hard facts. They acknowledged as much in an internal report released in 1995 in which they stated unequivocably that: โ€œThe scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot beย denied.โ€

The advisory committee that authored the 17-page report may have disagreed with the IPCCโ€™s conclusion that anthropogenic activities were warming the climate, but that did not mean that it hewed to the skeptic line. Indeed, though it recognized that โ€œthe contrarian theories raise interesting questions about our total understanding of climate processes,โ€ it dismissed them as unpersuasive at best โ€“ plainly stating that โ€œthey do not offer convincing arguments against the conventional model of greenhouse gas emission-induced climateย change.โ€

When confronted with this frank assessment, the leadership of the Global Climate Coalition did the only reasonable thing: drop the offending passages and expunge the reportโ€™s existence from the public record. (What, you were expecting something else?) And, if that didnโ€™t keep all the snooping reporters away, just play dumb โ€“ as William Oโ€™Keefe, the former head of the GCC, smartly demonstratesย here:

โ€œI have no idea why the section on the contrarians would have been deleted. One thing Iโ€™m absolutely certain of is that no member of the board of the Global Climate Coalition said, โ€˜We have to suppressย this.โ€™โ€

So despite being proven wrong from the get-go, the GCC proceeded along its merry way, sowing confusion and dooming the government to protracted inaction. As George Monbiot astutely points out, Big Oil and Big Coal did not need to win the argument in order to win the debate: all they had to do was show up with a larger megaphone (and deeperย pockets).

This again points to the utter failure of the mainstream media, which, in its overwrought efforts to give both โ€œsidesโ€ of the argument a fair shake, legitimized the skepticsโ€™ views and helped sow doubt. Or, as Attytoodโ€™s Will Bunch put it: โ€œWhatโ€™s disturbing (although, again, not all that surprising) is the role that supposed โ€œjournalistic ethicsโ€ played in spreading this Big Lie, by cluelessly giving these charlatans equal play with the established science on theย issue.โ€

Amen.

authordefault
Admin's short bio, lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur adipisicing elit. Voluptate maxime officiis sed aliquam! Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur adipisicing elit.

Related Posts

on

The Tory leader was hosted by a firm that holds a major contract with one of the worldโ€™s biggest polluters.

The Tory leader was hosted by a firm that holds a major contract with one of the worldโ€™s biggest polluters.
on

Carrefour, Lidl, Tesco and Walmart are among top food retailers without concrete plans to tackle potent greenhouse gas, according to analysis.

Carrefour, Lidl, Tesco and Walmart are among top food retailers without concrete plans to tackle potent greenhouse gas, according to analysis.
on

The Montreal Economic Institute isnโ€™t the only group rehashing misleading industry talking points, say climate experts.

The Montreal Economic Institute isnโ€™t the only group rehashing misleading industry talking points, say climate experts.
on

The group behind the radical Project 2025 agenda is increasingly turning its attention to Europe.

The group behind the radical Project 2025 agenda is increasingly turning its attention to Europe.