How A Smear Grows


The Nation has yet another attack on Exxon for “environmental crimes” due to the appearance of that fifty odd year old Humble Oil report. I’ve posted about this before. Here’s the Nation’s post.


On April 13, ExxonMobil filed suit to block a subpoena issued by the attorney general of the US Virgin Islands. Following revelations from the Los Angeles Times and InsideClimate News, the subpoena charged that the company may have violated the territory’s anti-racketeering law. It questioned whether Exxon told investors, including the territory’s pension fund, one thing about climate change (that it wasn’t a danger) while its own scientists were privately telling its management the opposite….

What’s more, by enabling increased global warming, Exxon’s alleged lying has damaged many people around the world. Crucially, the victims include investors and business owners. The poor suffer first and worst from climate change, but they rarely file—much less win—lawsuits against polluters. But when people of means are damaged, they don’t hesitate to sue for compensation…

Exxon’s exposure on this front is immense. If the allegations are true, the oil giant has in effect transferred massive amounts of risk and loss onto the rest of the market and virtually every business enterprise in it. By confusing the debate, Exxon helped delay government action against climate change. The company made buckets of money, but the resulting higher temperatures and extreme weather events have cost investors, governments, businesses, and ordinary people many billions, with much larger costs ahead. Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England, has warned that as climate change intensifies, “parties who have suffered loss or damage [may] seek compensation from those they hold responsible….”

Nor is the right’s cheerleading without its complications for Exxon. The right conflates the First Amendment argument with its cuckoo belief that climate change is a hoax, but Exxon has a different goal: to protect its public image. Exxon needs to be perceived as a good corporate citizen, and in 2016 a good corporate citizen doesn’t deny climate change.

Note that last sentence.  “in 2016 a good corporate citizen doesn’t deny climate change.  As an engineer who’s worked on scientific instruments and somebody who’s been around science at all sort of level for a long time this is appalling on a bunch of levels. First, who are the Nation to decide what a good citizen is, corporate or otherwise.  Second, in a free society, it isn’t the citizen’s role to affirm or deny anything.  It’s the government that’s required to make it’s case.  Which you don’t do with nuisance lawsuits and legal extortion threats.  Third, when presenting science you need to base what you say based on what you know, not what you believe.

Of course this whole thing is an attempt to smear people skeptical  of climate change as being in the pay of  the evil corporate managers at Exxon and thus skeptics can be discredited wholesale.  There’s just one problem with that.  Almost none of the major skeptics  in the science community have ever had much to do with Exxon or any other oil company.  All the subpoenas in the world will never find checks that never existed.

Somehow the progressive media, political and academic class can’t seem to figure out that there is no secret cabal of big oil companies telling the skeptics what to say.  The media , green groups and now it seems the government have gone to great lengths to find that connection and well, found nothing.

It’s at the point that they have to use fifty year old documents that are vague to the point of saying almost nothing and attempt to show that flimsy evidence PROVES beyond any shadow of a doubt that the conspiracy they always talk about is TRUE and that all skeptics need to be jailed, if not shot, right away to prevent the false hoods from muddying the waters.

But old media campaigns that were never used, vague memos and report from science conferences fifty years ago do not grand conspiracies make.  All they do is show how fanatical and cultish the warmists are.

Basically all this noise represent is projection based on the warmists’ own cultish behavior.  Right from the first Earth day,  the ecology movement has behaved more like a cult than an appeal to reason.  It’s a cult created from the darkest regions of humanity, based on ideas that had already caused the death of millions in gas chambers as being “unfit,” mass sterilizations and the twisting of the morals what a healthy society should be.  Following the first Earth Day, the cult continues the murderous path of it’s predecessors by mandating that civilization deny itself the tools to fight some of the deadly scourges of disease and malnutrition.  All because of a stupid equation created by a truly evil man.

The thing the warmists can’t seem to understand is that no matter how good you think your computer models and predictions are, no matter how much you want to believe in them, if they are wrong, well then you have to start over, not try to obfuscate the truth.  And the models have all gone off the rails.  But then the historical track record for Green alarmist pronouncements has an earned reputation for being wrong for being wrong almost all the time.  What’s amazing to me is that anybody believes them anymore.

If the climate science community actually worked as hard at doing science as they did trying to agitate and advocate they might be useful. Instead they’ve taken the discipline of climatology and turned it into a hotbed of Lysenkoish cultism with all the consequences on science that the loss of credibility they are creating engenders.  Yet they continue on, with ever greater prognostications of coming disasters and arguments by emotions rather than data.

In the end the only people the green cultists are smearing are themselves.  The more they continue their antics the more people will see what they truly are. Which is not good for them.  The more lies, manipulation and extreme behavior they produce, the harder it will be to actually make any real case.  By denying that a skeptical, scientifically based point of view in opposition to their own cultish behavior can exist based on reason and evidence and attempting through measures such as the attacks on Exxon and CEI, the warmists only show what their own character truly is.




  1. penneyvanderbilt · May 11, 2016

    Reblogged this on Ancien Hippie.


  2. Russell Cook (@questionAGW) · May 12, 2016

    Typo in the line “Note that last sentence. “in 2106 a good corporate …” — should be 2016.
    Feel free to notify me of any typos, and let me say “Thank you for your support!” in regard to the link to my 2014 GelbspanFiles blog post about the pattern seen in the smear of skeptic climate scientists. Got another new post there today, placed online only a short time ago.
    I leave the science to real scientists, but I hope your readers will join me in something ordinary citizens can do, namely looking deeply into whether the ‘industry-corrupted skeptic scientists’ has any validity whatsoever. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist or a climatologist to do that, something which enviro-activists cannot dispute.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s