The Climate Deception

Unveiling the Fossil Fuel Industry's Manipulative Agenda

So, you think you woke up one morning and realised that fossil fuels are the core of civilisation, without which a collapse awaits. Not so simple.........

Since the 1970s, a deceptive iceberg of disinformation has been shaping public and political opinions on climate change. The core of this manipulation lies within the fossil fuel industry, with corporations like ExxonMobil leading the charge. This chapter uncovers the extensive history of Exxon’s efforts to undermine climate science, the methods used and its successful lobbying against climate action, juxtaposing its internal scientific accuracy with its public denial of climate change.

In the late 1970s, Exxon's scientists conducted climate projections that not only predicted future global warming trends with alarming accuracy but also pinpointed when human-caused climate change would become evident, later empirically proven to be right. Astonishingly, despite these internal revelations, Exxon publicly downplayed climate change's significance and lobbied against measures to combat it. This hypocrisy highlights a disturbing trend of deception, where corporations like ExxonMobil have used their influence to manipulate public opinion and hinder climate action, all while being fully aware of the impending crisis.

As the fossil fuel industry began to grasp the catastrophic consequences of their operations on the environment, a counter-narrative was initiated. Recognizing the financial and reputational risks, industry giants like ExxonMobil chose to deny, distort, or downplay the scientific evidence of climate change. This marked the beginning of a disinformation campaign designed to sow doubt and confusion about climate change, delaying regulatory action and maintaining profit margins.

To undermine the credibility of climate science, the fossil fuel industry invested heavily in disinformation campaigns. These campaigns funded think tanks (as articulated in the chapter “The Dichotomy of Populism”, and further explored here) and individuals who denied or cast doubt on established scientific facts. By creating an environment where scepticism could thrive, the industry aimed to delay or prevent regulatory measures that could impact their profits.

The industry’s subliminal messaging created a fear of loss among the public and policymakers. By suggesting that climate action would lead to economic hardships, the industry evoked fear and resistance to climate policies. Furthermore, subliminal association linked climate policies with notions of personal sacrifice, framing climate action as undesirable and burdensome.

The industry painted climate action as economically harmful, suggesting that efforts to address climate change would lead to job losses and financial instability. This tactic played on public fears of economic hardship, discouraging support for environmental measures and maintaining the dominance of fossil fuels in the energy landscape.

Evidence of the public's unconscious adoption of industry narratives could be observed in instances of widespread pushback against climate initiatives. From organized opposition to renewable energy projects to resistance to environmental regulations, the industry's subliminal messaging effectively mobilized public sentiment against climate action. This unintentional and seemingly deliberate advocacy for the fossil fuel industry's interests by the manipulated public, was a manifestation of the public's internalization of the deceptive narrative, highlighting the powerful impact of subliminal messaging on shaping public perception and behaviour in the realm of climate change.

Charles and David Koch, the owners of Koch Industries, have long played a pivotal role in shaping the discourse around climate change and environmental policy (as also articulated elsewhere in this book). Known for their control over one of the largest private companies in the United States, largely based on fossil fuels, the Koch brothers have used their immense wealth and influence to fund a widespread campaign against environmental regulations and climate change legislation.

The Kochs have hosted annual donor summits, and secretive gatherings at luxury resorts that bring together wealthy donors, influential politicians, and conservative activists. These summits are strategic platforms for formulating plans to funnel money into think tanks and advocacy groups that align with their interests, particularly those promoting climate change denial and opposing environmental regulations.

Their substantial funding of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has been instrumental in drafting model legislation to roll back renewable energy standards and challenge Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations. Additionally, David Koch's founding of Americans for Prosperity (AFP) marks a significant investment in political advocacy against climate legislation. AFP's activities, ranging from organizing rallies to funding political campaigns and creating ad campaigns, have been crucial in discrediting climate science and opposing environmental measures.

The Kochs' support for the Heartland Institute, a group aggressively denying climate science, further illustrates their commitment to shaping public opinion on environmental policies. The Heartland Institute's conferences and reports consistently question the validity of climate change, critiquing environmental policies and promoting scepticism about scientific consensus.

In academia, the Kochs have influenced research agendas through significant donations to universities, particularly in economics departments. Their funding often comes with conditions that promote free-market environmentalism, which opposes regulatory approaches to environmental issues. This influence extends to their extensive lobbying efforts in Washington, where they have spent millions to sway energy and environmental policy, including efforts to weaken the Clean Air Act and oppose international agreements like the Paris Climate Accord.

The impact of the Kochs extends to the media landscape as well, with funded campaigns that spread misinformation about climate change. These campaigns typically portray environmental regulations as detrimental to economic growth and personal freedoms, effectively swaying public opinion against environmental action.

The cumulative effect of the Koch brothers' actions has been profound, fostering a climate of denial and creating political obstacles to environmental protection. Their network, dubbed the 'Kochtopus,' exemplifies the significant impact private wealth can have on public policy. Their legacy is evident in the delayed responses to climate change, the weakening of environmental protections, and a deeply polarized debate on climate issues.

The activities of Charles and David Koch underscore the challenges in the fight against climate change posed by influential private interests. Their strategic funding and coordinated efforts have effectively undermined scientific consensus and delayed critical environmental action, highlighting the need for greater transparency and accountability in political funding and influence.

To be clear, the consensus among actively publishing climate scientists is overwhelmingly in favour of the idea that humans are causing global warming and climate change; NASA states that 97 per cent of actively publishing climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Multiple studies find between 90 to 100 per cent of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming, with many studies converging on a 97 per cent consensus. A survey of over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers found a 97 per cent consensus in the literature that humans are causing global warming.?

While there may be a small percentage of scientists who hold dissenting views, the overwhelming majority support the understanding that human activities contribute significantly to climate change.

The dissenting “scientists” are, in most cases, either not scientists, or scientists not qualified in Climate; like going to the urologist due to heart problems! Here are some of the “influencer” climate sceptics, in no specific order, including their funding sources, qualifications, and key claims:

1. William Happer:

• Funding: William Happer has been associated with the CO2 Coalition, a group known for downplaying the effects of carbon dioxide. The CO2 Coalition receives funding from sources linked to the fossil fuel industry.
• Qualifications: Happer is a physicist and professor emeritus at Princeton University.
• Claims: Happer has expressed scepticism about the extent and impacts of climate change. He has argued that increased carbon dioxide levels may be beneficial for plant growth.

2. Bj?rn Lomborg:

• Funding: Lomborg is associated with the Copenhagen Consensus Center, and some critics have raised concerns about its funding sources. According to desmog.com, New York-based hedge fund manager Paul Singer’s charitable foundation gave $200,000 to Lomborg’s Copenhagen Consensus Center (CCC) in 2013, latest US tax disclosures reveal. Singer, described as a “passionate defender of the 1%”, has emerged as a major force in the Republican party in recent years
• Qualifications: Lomborg is a political scientist and author.
• Claims: Lomborg acknowledges human-induced climate change but advocates for cost-benefit analysis and prioritizing other global issues over immediate aggressive climate action.

3. Ivar Giaever:

• Funding: Giaever is on the “Who we are” of the Heartland Institute. The Kochs support the Heartland Institute, a group aggressively denying climate science.
• Qualifications: Giaever is a Nobel laureate in physics.
• Claims: Giaever has questioned the consensus on anthropogenic climate change and has made statements challenging the severity of its impacts.

4. Ian Plimer:

• Funding: According to a columnist in The Age, Plimer earned over $400,000 (AUD) from several of these companies, and he has mining shares and options worth hundreds of thousands of Australian dollars. Plimer is currently the non-executive deputy chairman of KEFI Minerals since 2006, independent non-executive director of Ivanhoe Australia Limited since 2007, chairman of TNT Mines Limited since 2010, non-executive director of Niuminco Group Limited (formerly DSF International Holdings Limited) since 2011, and non-executive director of Silver City Minerals Limited since 2011. He is the former non-executive director of CBH Resources Limited from 1998 to 2010, former non-executive director of Angel Mining plc from 2003 to 2005, former director of Kimberley Metals Limited from 2008 to 2009, former director of KBL Mining Limited from 2008 to 2009 and former director of Ormil Energy Limited from 2010 to 2011. He was appointed director of Roy Hill Holdings and Queensland Coal Investments in 2012.
• Qualifications: Plimer is a geologist.
• Claims: Plimer has challenged mainstream climate science, arguing that climate change is natural and not significantly influenced by human activities.

5. Claude Allègre:

• Funding: Claude Allègre is a French geochemist. While his funding sources are not explicitly documented, he initially supported climate science but later became a critic of certain aspects of climate change research.
• Qualifications: Allègre is a geochemist.
• Claims: Allègre has questioned aspects of climate change research and has expressed scepticism about the severity of human-induced climate change. In a 2010 petition, more than 500 French researchers asked Science Minister Valérie Pécresse to dismiss Allègre's book L’imposture climatique, claiming the book was "full of factual mistakes, distortions of data, and plain lies"

6. Roy Spencer:

• Funding: Roy Spencer is a meteorologist and principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. His funding sources are not explicitly documented.
• Qualifications: Spencer is a meteorologist. The major difference between meteorologists and climatologists is that meteorologists predict weather for the near term, while climatologists study past weather patterns to predict trends.
• Claims: Spencer is known for his scepticism regarding the extent of human influence on climate change and has challenged certain aspects of climate science.

7. Judith Curry:

• Funding: Judith Curry is a former professor and climatologist. After leaving academia, Curry shifted to running the Climate Forecast Applications Network, a climate-risk consulting company whose clients include energy companies.
• Qualifications: Curry is a climatologist.
• Claims: Curry is known for her critiques of climate science and climate models. She has expressed scepticism about the level of certainty in climate predictions.

8. Nir Shaviv:

• Funding: Nir Shaviv is an astrophysicist. He is a regular speaker at the Heartland Institute‘s International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC), and has been listed as an advisor to both the Committee for Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), and the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), although he has denied his affiliation with the former. Dr. Shaviv says that he is not funded by the oil industry or large corporations
• Qualifications: Shaviv is an astrophysicist.
• Claims: Although he is sceptical of man-made climate change, he stresses that there are a “dozen good reasons why we should strive to burn fewer fossil fuels.” His two primary reasons are pollution and depletion. He is in favour of developing cheap energy alternatives such as wind and solar power

9. Jan Veizer:

• Funding: Veizer was also a speaker at the Heartland Institute’s 2009 (an Institute largely funded by the Kocks)International Conference on Climate Change.
• Qualifications: Veizer is a geochemist.
• Claims: While acknowledging the influence of CO2 on climate, Veizer has questioned the dominant role attributed to human activities in climate change.

10. Richard Lindzen:

• Funding: Richard Lindzen is a professor emeritus at MIT. His funding sources are not explicitly documented. Analysis of Peabody Energy court documents showed that the fossil fuel company backed Lindzen. In the article in 1995, Ross Gelbspan reports Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels. A decade later Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam reported, based on an interview with Lindzen, that "he accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees from fossil-fuel types in the 1990s.
• Qualifications: Lindzen is an atmospheric physicist.
• Claims: Lindzen is known for his scepticism of the consensus on anthropogenic climate change and has challenged certain aspects of climate science.

11. John Christy:

• Funding: John Christy is a climate scientist and professor. Christy is perhaps the most prominent of a group of climate science outsiders who had become insiders in the Trump era. He has gained a seat on the EPA’s Science Advisory Board and won a $1.5 million Department of Energy grant for his research into the contrarian notion that the Earth’s climate is relatively insensitive to carbon emissions.
• Qualifications: Christy is a climate scientist.
• Claims: Christy has been involved in climate research and has expressed scepticism about certain climate models and the severity of climate change.

12. Sherwood B. Idso:

• Funding: Sherwood B. Idso is a physicist and former research physicist. Idso narrated the video titled “The Greening of Planet Earth,” which was funded by the Western Fuels Association and by the coal industry and produced by Idso’s wife. The video promises that doubling the atmosphere’s concentration of carbon dioxide will benefit agriculture. Idso also appeared in the video to discuss the supposed benefits of CO2!
• Qualifications: Idso is a physicist.
• Claims: Idso is known for his work on the physiological effects of increased carbon dioxide and has challenged the severity of climate change impacts.

13. Fred Singer:

• Funding: Fred Singer is a former space scientist and government scientific administrator, he runs the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP). This phantom organisation was set up by APCO & Associates, the PR firm controlled by Philip Morris, to denigrate science itself and enlist other industries like oil, energy, coal, chemicals, etc, behind the tort reform and anti-regulatory stance necessary for the cigarette business to survive at the same high-profit level. Singer was at the front of the organisation, but it also involved his wife Candace Crandall and her brother Robert Crandall (Brookings Institution). In a sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer also stated that he had undertaken consulting work on "perhaps a dozen or so" energy companies. This included work on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell, Sun, Unocal, the Electric Power Research Institute, Florida Power and the American Gas Association.
• Qualifications: Singer is an atmospheric physicist.
• Claims: Singer has been a prominent sceptic of the scientific consensus on climate change, challenging certain aspects of climate science.

Please note that these individuals have varying degrees of scepticism, and their views do not represent the majority consensus in climate science as shown above. It's essential to consider the broader scientific community's consensus on climate change, which strongly supports the understanding that human activities contribute significantly to global warming.

The divisive narrative crafted by the fossil fuel industry has had far-reaching consequences on the global response to climate change. By creating ideological camps and deepening societal divides, this narrative has hindered constructive dialogue and collaboration, posing significant challenges to the development of effective climate policies. The industry, represented by entities like ExxonMobil and the Koch brothers, has skillfully exploited these divisions to further entrench its position, delaying essential global efforts to address the climate crisis.

The deceptive practices employed by these powerful players and their hired “influencers”, have left a profound impact, not only on environmental policy but also on the planet and society as a whole. As the reality of climate change becomes more apparent and its effects more tangible, the urgency to counter these misleading narratives grows. This battle against climate misinformation is not just about implementing policy changes; it requires a fundamental shift in public perception. Guided by scientific evidence, truth, and a resolute commitment to the planet's future, society must come together to hold these entities accountable and champion sustainable solutions. The fight against climate change demands a concerted effort from all sectors, emphasizing the critical need for truth and transparency in addressing one of the most pressing challenges of our time.

For more equally challenging chapters on the Zeitgeist, download the free "Silent Echoes" eBook here by 22/02/2024 - https://shorturl.at/befhE

#FossilFuel #Koch #gaslighting #Disinformation #ICE #deception