+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 51
Latest: JUST4TheFACTS
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 14470
Total Topics: 264
Most Online Today: 32
Most Online Ever: 201
(December 08, 2019, 11:34:38 pm)
Users Online
Members: 1
Guests: 1
Total: 2

Author Topic: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi  (Read 11475 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31408
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #255 on: July 30, 2019, 06:31:42 pm »
TruthDig

JUL 28, 2019

By Katie Halper / FAIR

Senator Sanders is America's FAVORITE, no matter what LIES the 🦕🦖 Hydrocarbon Hellspawn corrupted 😈 media spread to tarnish his reputation.

 
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31408
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Bill Maher is part of the PROBLEM
« Reply #256 on: August 05, 2019, 01:33:40 pm »
Elitists Roll Out  "Stop Rebelling And 🙉🙊🐵 Support 😈 Biden, You Insolent Little Sh!ts" Campaign 

Mon, 08/05/2019 - 10:30

Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com,

The US presidential election is more than 15 months away, and already we’re seeing elitist establishment narrative managers rolling out their long-anticipated “Stop Rebelling and Support Biden, You Insolent Little Sh!ts” campaign. HBO’s  Bill Maher spent his “New Rule” monologue segment last night admonishing his audience to abandon any notion of progressive reform and embrace the former vice president instead.

“All the Democrats have to do to win is to come off less crazy than Trump, and of course they’re blowing it, coming across as unserious people who are going to take your money so that migrants from Honduras can go to college for free and get a major in America Sucks,” Maher said.


“Now do I want Biden to be president? Not really ,  but Biden’s the only Democrat who beats Trump in Ohio. He’s like non-dairy creamer: nobody loves it, but in a jam it gets the job done.”


“I’m sick of hearing that Democrats need to excite the base; Trump excites the base,” Maher said.

“It’s the fatigue, stupid. Let’s make it hard for Donald Trump to play on voters’ fears and let the fatigue win the election for us. We’ll get to the revolution, but remember: put on your oxygen mask before assisting your child.”

Boy, Bill. If that’s not the kind of inspiring rallying cry that can galvanize people against the president, I don’t know what is.

Weirdly, Maher inadvertently explains why his brilliant Biden strategy is doomed to failure earlier on in this exact same segment. Maher praises the Trump economy, saying “It’s hard to beat an incumbent in a good economy; every incumbent since FDR has won if they avoided a recession leading up to the election year.”

“The voters that Democrats need to win, moderates who have Trump fatigue, will vote against a good economy, I think, just to get back to normalcy,” Maher said.

“But they won’t trade it away for left-wing extremism. You say you want a revolution, well, you know, you gotta get elected first.”  ::)

Maher has all the facts right there in front of him, but because he is a propagandist who is only famous because he knows how to spout pro-establishment lines in an authoritative tone of voice, he manages to interpret them in the dumbest way possible. Yes, on paper the US economy is doing well, but only by the standards used by neoliberal politicians and mass media outlets to determine economic success. In real terms a population that used to be able to support a family on a single income now mostly requires two incomes, and most of them would struggle to pay even a thousand-dollar emergency expense.

Americans have gotten much poorer in terms of real income and income inequality has been exploding, but because both parties have been normalizing this paradigm and deceitfully using stock markets and unemployment rates to measure economic success, Trump is able to say he’s performing amazingly well economically. In terms of real American spending power he’s actually performing abysmally, but Democrats are resistant to saying so because it will mean conceding that the Obama/Biden administration did, too.

The path to beating Trump, then, is obviously not to hope that Americans will “vote against a good economy” for the first time in living memory as Bill Maher suggests, but to address the elephant in the room of growing income and wealth inequality and how more and more Americans have to work multiple jobs just to make ends meet. If you can offer Americans more in terms of real economic justice instead of crap about the stock exchange that puts bread on nobody’s table, voters will listen. There are some candidates who are campaigning on exactly this platform, and none of them are named 😈 Joe Biden.

Joe Biden has a message for the millennial generation: Stop complaining. https://t.co/4qELqr15vU

— HuffPost (@HuffPost) August 3, 2019
Biden’s platform, in contrast, seems more and more to consist of him just telling progressives to shut up and stop whining. Asked on a recent AFSCME forum about his controversial comments in January of last year that he has “no empathy” for young Americans who fear crippling college debt and rising cost of living, The Huffington Post reports that Biden not only stood by his comments, but doubled down on them, saying that if things are bad then the younger generation is to blame for not engaging in the political process.


“Don’t tell me how bad it is, change it,” Biden said.

“Change it. Change it. My generation did.”

Biden, like Bill Maher, is inadvertently giving progressives all the information they need. Yes, they should change it. And the very first thing they should change is a political dynamic which elevates warmongering Wall Street cronies like Joe Biden. There’s absolutely no reason for anyone to accept a status quo that insists the only way to beat Trump is to take a Hail Mary on trying to elect a Democrat who’s no better than Trump. They tried that in 2016 and there’s no reason to believe they’ll be able to bully everyone into playing along in 2020.

The former vice president is about one click away from coming right out and saying “Vote for me, because f u c k you that’s why.” And elitist establishment narrative managers are already essentially saying it for him. >:(

*  *  *

The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2


https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-08-04/elitists-roll-out-stop-rebelling-and-support-biden-you-insolent-little-shts

Agelbert NOTE: Most of those Crooks and Liars trying to pass as "Democratic Candidates for President" are corporate bullshit artists positioned there for the express purpose of reducing the microphone time of true progressives AND watering down their message with right wing scaremongering hyperbole about "unwinnable progressives".

No matter what the idiot Maher says, Biden is NOT "better than Trump" unless you think supporting the MURDEROUS government funded status quo that is trashing the biosphere, perpetuating wars and Corporate Welfare Queen HANDOUTS on behalf of the  🦕🦖 Hydrocarbon Hellspawn (and other MIC PARASITIC bastards) "profits", society impoverishing, inequality enhancing, and Wall Street babying is "better than Trump".

The Democratic Party is trying to undermine Progressive voices like Senator Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard and Yang. Don't let them get away with it. DEMAND that Progressives be given 5 TIMES the air time as anybody else in that crowd of disguised Republicans. They have EARNED IT.

Those SAME media outlets gave Trump BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF FREE TIME in 2016! Don't believe any BULLSHIT about "costs" from those corporate media BASTARDS!

Doubling Down: The Military, Big Bankers and Big Oil Are Not In Climate Denial, They Are in Control and Plan to Keep It That Way.
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31408
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
 
Make Nexus Hot News part of your morning: click here to subscribe.

August 8, 2019



Latest 🦕🦖 Koch Attack on Green New Deal Inherently Misleading, And Relies On ‘Bogus’ Numbers

😈 Kent Lassman of the Koch-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute recently partnered with former Koch lackey 😈 Daniel Turner of Power the Future on what the Washington Times’ Valerie Richardson generously describes as a “study” claiming that the Green New Deal will cost American households some $70,000 in its first year.
 
While most people would consider a study to be research based on real facts and peer reviewed to verify claims and published in an academic journal, these claims meet none of those qualifications.

Instead, this can at best be described as an analysis, but more honestly, it’s two Koch goons doing some back-of-the-envelope math, copying the work of fellow Koch goon Benjamin Zycher and the former Nixon CREEP at American Action Forum who popularized a $93 trillion price tag for the GND that Politico aptly described as “bogus.”

Essentially what Lassman and Turner do is average the costs cooked up by Zycher and AAF with those from the energy research firm Wood Mackenzie, who estimated a $4.7 trillion cost for moving off of fossil fuels. They then divided those costs by the number of households in five key states, and came up with some big scary numbers.

Since the Green New Deal is more of an aspiration than an actual set of policies at this point, they admit that they’ve had to make “a considerable number of assumptions.” And no one intelligent would give people whose job it is to promote fossil fuels and attack renewables the benefit of the doubt that those assumptions were legitimate. And you don’t even have to look hard for them.

For example, the authors confess that they don’t even bother trying to calculate the cost savings of energy efficiency upgrades, which would dramatically reduce household energy bills and almost certainly pay for themselves over the long term. Instead, they average a few different estimates for making a home energy efficient and peg the number at $27,413. They THEN assume that cost is all paid at once in the first year of the GND, making their headline first-year figures nearly $30,000 bigger than each year afterwards.

It’s the same for electric vehicles. They don’t take into account that EVs have significantly lower operating costs than gas-powered cars, which lowers lifetime costs. They also ignore the fact that people are regularly buying new cars anyway, so instead of comparing the cost of buying a new car when you need it with a new EV instead, they simply pretend the GND will make everyone go out and buy a new EV immediately.

Despite these obvious failings, and the reliance on a “bogus” report, there’s little doubt the dramatic “GND will cost households $70,000 a year!” framework will get picked up by fossil-fueled deniers. And when that happens, it would certainly be helpful to have some rigorous debunking of the numbers beyond the surface-level fallacies we’ve pointed out here. 

But the entire report is based on a fundamental misrepresentation: that individual households should be responsible for picking up the cost of climate action. Why in the world would that be the case?

After all, it’s a pretty universal human value that when you make a mess, you clean it up yourself, you don’t make someone else do it for you. Or in policy parlance, it’s the polluter pays” principle, which dates back to at least the industrialization of the 1800s. 

The 🦖 fossil fuel 😈 industry has known for decades that its product causes climate change. It has profited off of making this mess. Why shouldn’t it be responsible for paying for the clean up?

After all, they certainly have the money- a 2018 study pegged the stock value of 1,500 oil and gas firms at $4.65 trillion. For those keeping score, that’s just shy of the $4.7 trillion Wood Mackenzie guessed it would take to kick our fossil fuel addiction.

But if you must charge households, maybe start with those of the 🐉🦕🦖 fossil fuel executives still profiting off of the problem ?


Read more:


 The 🦕🦖 Hydrocarbon 👹 Hellspawn Fossil Fuelers DID THE Clean Energy  Inventions suppressing, Climate Trashing, human health depleting CRIME, but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks 🦀, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or   PAYING THE FINE! Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!   
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31408
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #258 on: August 09, 2019, 06:03:55 pm »
 
Make Nexus Hot News part of your morning: click here to subscribe.

August 9, 2019



Launch of KochDocs.org Puts Primary Resources At Your Fingertips

Some might say that we’re a little obsessed with the 🦕🦖 Koch network over here. And, well, they might be right. But given the sprawling nature of the network, even we have trouble keeping all the various debunkings and exposés and histories in one place.

Thankfully, DeSmog has launched a new Koch clearinghouse, which has all the KochDocs you could ever want. It was compiled by a pair of researchers, Lisa Graves and Connor Gibson, who have spent more time than we’d care to imagine immersed in the Koch’s world.

So what’s the site have to offer? Well, there’s a page compiling some 860 different 990 forms for various Koch-affiliated groups, putting the tax info directly linking Koch money to their front groups right at your fingertips. Then there’s the collection index, with primary documents dating back to a 1972 Libertarian party 😈 pamphlet

If that’s a little much, there’s a more cultivated tab of Top Documents, highlighting past and present evidence of how the Kochs wield their power and influence. And the Resources tab has links to essential Koch books for those who like a long-read, some lovely videos for the more visually-inclined, and a whole bunch of reports from other groups for those somewhere in the middle.

To get a sense of the stories that can be written from these materials, see the Analysis tab, which includes the latest piece, on how the Kochs tried to kill the Department of Energy while it was still in its infancy.

They lost that battle, obviously, but the bigger war? Well, the man currently atop the Department of Energy is one who famously claimed to want to abolish it, proving that for every thrust of reality, the Kochs will Perry.

More Nexus News:

Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31408
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #259 on: August 13, 2019, 07:08:25 pm »
 
Make Nexus Hot News part of your morning: click here to subscribe.

Aug 12, 2019, 8:20 AM



Attacking 16-Year-Old Great Thunberg’s Climate Activism Isn’t Enough For Deniers, Who Have To Make Personal, Too

One of deniers’ favorite lines, used to justify the fact that basically everyone who isn’t paid by fossil fuels debunks everything they say, is that if you’re taking flak, you must be close to the target. It comes from World War II, when bomber pilots came under increasingly heavy fire as they approached the German’s most valuable assets.

Judging by that criteria, deniers are feeling downright terrified of 16-year-old climate activist Greta Thunberg.


Greta Thunberg, a valiant voice of Truth, continues to be Viciously Attacked by the Hydrocarbon Hellspawn. >:(

While most school children are busy enjoying summer, this August began with a risible attack on Greta by denier from down under Andrew Bolt, which predictably got picked up by WUWT. To her credit, Ms. Thunberg seemed relatively unfazed by major Australian newspaper the Herald Sun running Bolt’s piece calling her “deeply disturbed,” tweeting in response that yes, she is “indeed ‘deeply disturbed’ about the fact that these hate and conspiracy campaigns are allowed to go on and on and on just because we children communicate and act on the science.”

And the day after Greta’s tweet, none other than the bastion of mainstream liberal media, The New York Times, ran an op-ed attacking Thunberg. The piece was authored by Christopher Caldwell, a senior editor at the conservative Weekly Standard. (Which may make you wonder about that “conspiracy campaign” targeting her.)

As Ted Macdonald notes in his Media Matters debunking of Caldwell’s piece, the essay includes “basic climate denial and personal attacks” that “echo those that have been made in right-wing media ever since Thunberg rose to prominence.”

We’ve known for years that the 🦍 Serengeti Strategy is a key tactic of organized denial. Coined by one of its primary victims, Dr. Michael Mann, this is the term for the process of singling out and focusing negative attention on someone deniers are particularly threatened by--akin to how lions seek out a single individual on which to prey. Because it’s basically impossible for deniers to challenge the science and evidence, they instead target individuals in the hopes of harassing them into silence.

But the attacks on Greta go even further. As E&E’s Scott Waldman reported on Friday, Thunberg’s openness about not being neurotypical has become a recurring theme to organized denial’s attacks.

In addition, then, to folks comparing her activism to the “Hitler youth,” accusations that she’s “being mercilessly manipulated by adult climate bedwetters funded by Putin,” and simple tweets like “Greta=Evil,” we’re seeing what autism expert Steve Silberman described to Waldman as “classic autism bashing.” Silberman explains how deniers “feel like they don’t have to hold back” and can “just ‘other’ her, turn her into a freak when she’s actually making more sense than 95% of the adults who have addressed this issue for the last 30 years.”

For example, Waldman mentions attacks on Thunberg’s “monotone voice” and “look of apocalyptic dread in her eyes” that apparently make her look like a “millenarian weirdo.” As autism advocate Zoe Gross points out, these could be examples of people “explicitly saying that autistic people are not worth listening to,” despite what should be an obvious fact that “people with all kinds of disabilities can form and express opinions, speak up for ourselves and others, and become advocates and leaders.”

As well they should. And it’s not even always much of a disability, with Thunberg herself saying while it’s “not a ‘gift,’” it “CAN be a superpower.” As Silberman describes: “unlike most neurotypical people, she can’t just shrug off the fact that of course oil company executives are going to lie and politicians who are beholden to them are going to lie. She can’t abide that, it bothers her almost viscerally.”

Which, yes, it should. It should bother all of us viscerally.

So while their attacks are even more re-Gretable than usual, it sort of makes sense that she would be targeted. As far as activists go, she’s already had an inGretable influence, and she’s just getting started .     


Full Newsletter:
 
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31408
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
 
Make Nexus Hot News part of your morning: click here to subscribe.

September 6, 2019



😈 Watts Ships Out On Alaskan 🦖 Wingnut Cruise With 🐉 Steyn,  🦕McIntyre and  🦕 McKittrick

Yesterday, Anthony Watts announced he was taking a week-long cruise at the invitation of Mark Steyn, a man known probably best known for his Islamophobia, and occasionally filling in as a guest host for both 👹 Rush Limbaugh and 👹 Tucker Carlson. (Apparently Steyn’s who you call when you need a pinch-hater.)

As Watts put it, being given a free ride on Steyn’s week-long Alaskan cruise is “one of the few perks I get as a climate skeptic.”. Along with him will be Steve McIntyre and Ross McKittrick. The three will appear on a climate panel during the cruise, and then sign books with the lucky ducks on board.

Like Watts, McIntyre and McKittrick are hardly relevant in the climate conversation these days. McIntyre is a former mining executive turned blogger who mostly faded into obscurity after getting called out for manufacturing Climategate quotes and making elementary errors in attacking climate scientists, like confusing annual and monthly data.

McKittrick, to his credit, didn’t let making a fool out of himself by mixing up radians and degrees in his haste to attack the climate consensus slow down his output of misleading and cherry-picked denial pseudoscience.

Steyn, meanwhile, is not exactly an up-and-comer. The conservative CRTV (now BlazeTV) canceled his show after just two months in 2017 (although  the lawsuit over it seems to be carrying on, far outlasting the show itself). His former employees accused him of being verbally abusive, wasteful with the company credit card, unrehearsed and ill-prepared, and generally “not interested in help with the creation of his show,” which he allegedly “intentionally sabotaged.” 

Oh, also, Dr. Michael Mann is suing him for defamation. Even those who aren’t fans of Mann’s approach consider Steyn’s behavior “disastrous,” describing his moves as “antics” and “a very risky gambit.” And one example of this? Steyn’s chosen to defend himself. Of course, as the old saying goes, he who represents himself has a fool for a client.

Between the four of them, and everyone else who signed up for a Steyn cruise, it’s a regular Ship of Fools.

Read more:
 

Agelbert NOTE: I would call that ship of fools a a ship of 🦕🦖 Hydrocarbon Hellspawn Bought and Paid for 🐍 SNAKES!
« Last Edit: September 06, 2019, 03:58:06 pm by AGelbert »
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31408
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #261 on: September 07, 2019, 06:53:35 pm »
Shifting Blame Is a Favorite Habit of 🦕🐍🦖 Polluters and This 🦀 President

BY
William Rivers Pitt, TRUTHOUT

PUBLISHED September 7, 2019

Trump blaming businesses for the failures of his economic policies, polluters blaming consumers for the state of the environment, is all of a piece: The captain of the Titanic blaming the passengers for the iceberg. Both Trump and the polluters have a great deal of power and money to fling their blame-shifting into the zeitgeist. Please don't fall for it.

During the CNN climate town hall on Wednesday night, presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren forcefully blew the lid off the idea that consumers must bear the blame for the state of the environment. The altogether glorious moment came when 🐍 Chris Cuomo, one of the town hall hosts, became the first golf ball in history to put itself on a tee.

“Today the president announced plans to roll back energy-saving lightbulbs,” said 🐍 Cuomo to Warren, “and he wants to reintroduce four different kinds. Do you think that the government should be in the business of telling you what kind of lightbulb you can have?”

Warren , in response, went full No Time For Your Bullshit, Chris. “Oh, come on, give me a break,” she began, before cracking off one of the more important moments of the evening:

This is exactly what the 🦕🦖 fossil fuel industry hopes we’re all talking about. That’s what they want us to talk about. “This is your problem.” They want to be able to stir up a lot of controversy around your lightbulbs, around your straws, and around your cheeseburgers. When 70 percent of the pollution of the carbon that we’re throwing into the air comes from three 🐉🦕🦖 industries, and we can set our targets and say, by 2028, 2030, and 2035, no more. Think about that. Right there.

Now, the other 30 percent, we still got to work on. Oh, no, we don’t stop at 70 percent. But the point is, that’s where we need to focus. And why don’t we focus there? It’s corruption. It’s these giant corporations that keep hiring the PR firms that — everybody has fun with it, right, gets it all out there — so we don’t look at who’s still making the big bucks off polluting our Earth.

Read the Article →

 The 🦕🦖 Hydrocarbon 👹 Hellspawn Fossil Fuelers DID THE Clean Energy  Inventions suppressing, Climate Trashing, human health depleting CRIME, but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks 🦀, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or   PAYING THE FINE! Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!   
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31408
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #262 on: October 16, 2019, 01:01:07 pm »
 
Make Nexus Hot News part of your morning: click here to subscribe.

October 16, 2019



Protests: We Need System Change, Not Personal Sacrifice.
🐍 Lomborg: Protesters Are Wrong To Ask For Personal Sacrifice ::)

It’s been years since anyone could be excused for taking 🦕 Bjorn Lomborg’s “Skeptical Environmentalist” schtick seriously. Time and again he’s proven himself to be a hollow shell of pseudo-intellectual pretense, a good-looking argument that falls apart upon even the most cursory inspection.

His latest op-ed in the NYPost is nothing new. In the piece, Lomborg claims, as is his mantra, that protesters are “focused on all the wrong solutions.”

The thrust of his argument is that individual actions, like not driving, flying, or eating meat, aren’t enough to save the climate.

That’s true. What isn’t true, though, is 😈 Lomborg’s mischaracterization of the protests, which no honest observer could possibly claim is about asking people to make token sacrifices.

That’s probably why Lomborg doesn’tactually quote Greta Thunberg or any of the other protesters, or cite any of their website materials, or otherwise substantiate his strawman claim about them “pursuing the wrong solution to climate change.” In reality, Extinction Rebellion’s three main asks are all aimed at governments. If Lomberg were to watch any of Greta’s speeches, he’d immediately see her ire is pointed at governments for failing to act, not at regular people for failing to sacrifice. 


In fact, even the picture accompanying Lomborg’s op-ed debunks its premise: the only legible sign reads Congress, Albany, NYC: Why are you complicit in the climate crisis?” Clearly that’s a call for systemic change at the legislative level, and not one of personal sacrifices.

And in looking at page after page of “best signs” picture stories, the only ones having to do with personal action are obviously jokes.

The overarching goal of the ongoing student strikes is to get leaders to take action, because individual sacrifice is in no way enough to solve the problem. And Greta’s whole point in taking a sailboat instead of a plane to travel to the United State was to highlight the lack of sustainable long-distance travel options, and the need for systemic change to create those alternatives.

But Lomborg needs to attack real activists to be even remotely relevant. Pointing out that the protesters are right to call for systemic solutions wouldn’t get him published in the Murdoch press, after all.

Criticizing protesters, though, as he has always done, is a surefire way to get placed in outlets that care less about facts than they do attacks.

Full Nexus Hot News:

« Last Edit: October 16, 2019, 05:56:30 pm by AGelbert »
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31408
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution

BLACK BEAR NEWS: Exxon Knew
711 views•Oct 26, 2019


Black Bear News
2.44K subscribers

#BlackBearNews

'So they knew': Ocasio-Cortez questions Exxon scientist on climate crisis denial – video
https://www.theguardian.com/business/...

Exxon sowed doubt about climate crisis, House Democrats hear in testimony
https://www.theguardian.com/business/...

Twitter @BlackBearNews1

Support via Paypal:  https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr...

Support via Square: https://cash.me/$RedLlamaMusic

Red Llama Music
PO Box 132
So Pasadena, CA 91031
Category People & Blogs


 


Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31408
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
 
Make Nexus Hot News part of your morning: click here to subscribe.

Oct 29, 2019, 8:02 AM



Big 🦕 Oil’s Pivot 😉 To Supposed Climate Hero 😇 Is Key Part of Mass V 😈 ExxonMobil Case

Yesterday we talked about the context section of the Mass v ExxonMobil complaint, which describes how the 🦕🦖 oil industry misled Americans on climate change and kept the public from embracing climate action by preventing us from making fully informed decisions.

Today we’re going to keep looking at the complaint--there’s more to talk about!

A key plank of the complaint deals with ExxonMobil’s “false and misleading misrepresentations” regarding their products, specifically in claiming that “use of ExxonMobil’s Synergy™ fuels and ‘green’ Mobil 1™ motor oil products will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” Compared to how complicated the issue involving investors being misled by the company’s two sets of proxy carbon costs, the advertising section is pretty straightforward.

The suit alleges that ExxonMobil’s ads are misleading because “the development, refining, and consumer use of ExxonMobil fossil fuel products emit large volumes of greenhouse gases.Trying to 😈 make people think otherwise is greenwashing, which the complaint defines as “advertising and promotional materials designed to convey a false impression that a company is more environmentally responsible than it really is, and so to 😈 induce consumers to purchase its products.” 

ExxonMobil’s ads seek to give consumers the impression that the use of its products “reduces greenhouse gas emissions, at most a half-truth...since ExxonMobil also fails to disclose the fact that the production and consumer use of fossil fuel products like Synergy™ and ‘green’ Mobil 1™ are a leading cause of climate change that endangers public health and consumer welfare.” And while “even if it is technically true” that these products improve engine performance or fuel efficiency compared to other products, they still don’t reduce emissions like the ads suggest.

Seeking to convince the public that their products are “beneficial to the climate… is reminiscent of the tobacco industry’s effort to promote ‘low-tar’ and ‘light’ cigarettes as an alternative to quitting smoking, after the public became aware of the life-threatening health harms associated with smoking,” an apt metaphor that further solidifies the similarities between the tobacco industry’s misinformation campaign and ExxonMobil’s.


And the implications here are huge--ExxonMobil is hardly the only 🦖 oil company that’s trying to convince consumers that it’s taking climate change seriously. 🐍 API is running ads about fracked ☠️ gas being a "climate solution" , while also lobbying to support a bill that would kill a tax credit for Electric Vehicles, per new reporting from E&E. has its years-long celeb and social influencer campaigns and decades of knowledge about the threat of its products, while BP began the year with its “lipstick on a pig” ad campaign and continues claiming gas is a climate solution in ads that regularly appear in Axios. 

If this case is successful, then, and sets the precedent that the fossil fuel industry can’t lie about its products causing, instead of solving, climate change, what might the new advertisements look like?

“The climate is changing, but our ☠️ business isn’t. So what if the world’s on fire, you have a meeting to get to!”

“Who needs a stable climate, when your car has climate control? Buy our gas to keep your car cool, and the planet hot.”

“The climate’s hot, but our hearts are ice cold.”


Full newsletter:


 The 🦕🦖 Hydrocarbon 👹 Hellspawn Fossil Fuelers DID THE Clean Energy  Inventions suppressing, Climate Trashing, human health depleting CRIME, but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks 🦀, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or   PAYING THE FINE! Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!   
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31408
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
 
Make Nexus Hot News part of your morning: click here to subscribe.

ov 7, 2019, 8:23 AM



The Seven Deadly Sins of 😈 Propaganda Are Still Alive And Well 👀

While we generally strive to stay current in addressing the day-to-day denial, today we’re looking a little further back–all the way to November, 1937 🧐 (h/t Dr. Jennifer Mercieca).

That’s when the Institute for Propaganda Analysis published an explainer on “how to detect propaganda,” describing “seven common propaganda devices.” In the 80+ years since, precious little has changed.

The first tool of propaganda in the 1937 explainer is Name Calling, where “the propagandist appeals to our hate and fear” by “giving ‘bad names’ to those individuals, groups, nations, races, policies, practices, beliefs and ideals which he would have us condemn and reject.” Pretty straightforward: attaching a negative label to a person or group of people is a great way to pit your fans against your enemies.

The second is Glittering Generalities, where the propagandist “appeals to our emotions of love, generosity, and brotherhood.” It’s the flip side of name calling in that it seeks to “make us accept and approve, without examining the evidence.” This approach works best when combined with name calling, in that “words make us create devils to fight or gods to adore.”

Third, we have Transfer, “a device by which the propagandist carries over the authority, sanction, and prestige of something we respect and revere to something he would have us accept. For example, most of us respect and revere our church and our nation. If the propagandist succeeds in getting church or nation to approve a campaign in behalf of some program, he thereby transfers its authority, sanction, and prestige to that program. Thus we may accept something which otherwise we might reject.” 

Then there’s the pretty self-explanatory Testimonial, “a device to make us accept anything from a patent medicine or a cigarette to a program of national policy” by quoting some ostensibly qualified and unbiased other person’s opinion.

Next is the inverse of the expert testimonial, the “Plain Folks” appeal. This is an attempt “to win our confidence by appearing to be people like ourselves-- ‘just plain folks among the neighbors.’”
When we see someone who reflects our values, speech, or worldview, they appear “just as common as the rest of us… and, therefore, wise and good.”

The sixth feature of propaganda is Card Stacking, when someone “stacks the cards against the truth” by using “under-emphasis and over-emphasis to dodge issues and evad facts… resorts to lies, censorship, and distortion,” and  “creates a smoke-screen of clamor by raising a new issue when he wants an embarrassing matter forgotten.” Basically, the propagandist says all sorts of things that may or may not be true as a distraction from the one big thing he doesn’t want you paying attention to, overwhelming your ability to check facts by flooding the discourse with lies.

Finally, there’s the Band Wagon, “a device to make us follow the crowd, to accept the propagandist’s program en masse” to give the impression that “everybody’s doing it.” To do so, the “techniques range from those of medicine show to dramatic spectacle. He hires a hall, fills a great stadium, marches a million men in parade. He employs symbols, colors, music, movement, all the dramatic arts.”

The aim of each of these is to use emotions to short-circuit rational thought, clouding decision-making with appeals to base instincts and prejudices, creating a bond between propagandist and follower that no factual intervention could possibly impeach.

[Editor’s note: in Monday’s discussion about nuclear winter, we described the climate science community’s rejection of Carl Sagan’s “nuclear winter” hypothesis. But as a reader pointed out, more modern climate models actually ended up affirming Sagan’s more catastrophic view, further illustrating the still-ongoing nature of the debate Kessler claimed never happened!]

Full newsletter:


Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31408
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
The Greatest Scam In History
« Reply #266 on: November 14, 2019, 02:25:15 pm »
CleanTechnica
Support CleanTechnica’s work via donations on Patreon or PayPal!

Or just go buy a cool t-shirt, cup, baby outfit, bag, or hoodie.

The Greatest Scam In History
November 14th, 2019 by Guest Contributor

By Naomi Oreskes , first published on Tomdispatch.com.

🦕 🦖 Energy companies have engaged in a deliberate disinformation campaign that has successfully undermined our scientific knowledge of climate change, writes Naomi Oreskes in her latest book Why Trust Science?


It’s a tale for all time. What might be the greatest scam in history or, at least, the one that threatens to take history down with it. Think of it as the climate-change scam that beat science, big time.

Scientists have been seriously investigating the subject of human-made climate change since the late 1950s and political leaders have been discussing it for nearly as long. In 1961, Alvin Weinberg, the director of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, called carbon dioxide one of the “big problems” of the world “on whose solution the entire future of the human race depends.” Fast-forward nearly 30 years and, in 1992, President George H.W. Bush signed the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), promising “concrete action to protect the planet.”

Today, with Puerto Rico still recovering from Hurricane Maria and fires burning across California, we know that did not happen. Despite hundreds of scientific reports and assessments, tens of thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers, and countless conferences on the issue, man-made climate change is now a living crisis on this planet. Universities, foundations, churches, and individuals have indeed divested from fossil fuel companies and, led by a 16-year-old Swedish girl, citizens across the globe have taken to the streets to express their outrage. Children have refused to go to school on Fridays to protest the potential loss of their future. And if you need a measure of how long some of us have been at this, in December, the Conference of Parties to the UNFCCC will meet for the 25th time.

Scientists working on the issue have often told me that, once upon a time, they assumed, if they did their jobs, politicians would act upon the information. That, of course, hasn’t happened. Anything but, across much of the planet. Worse yet, science failed to have the necessary impact in significant part because of disinformation promoted by the major fossil-fuel companies, which have succeeded in diverting attention from climate change and successfully blocking meaningful action.

Making Climate Change Go Away

Much focus has been put on ExxonMobil’s history of disseminating disinformation, partly because of the documented discrepancies between what that company said in public about climate change and what its officials said (and funded) in private. Recently, a trial began in New York City accusing the company of misleading its investors, while Massachusetts is prosecuting ExxonMobil for misleading consumers as well.

If only it had just been that one company, but for more than 30 years, the fossil-fuel industry and its allies have denied the truth about anthropogenic global warming. They have systematically misled the American people and so purposely contributed to endless delays in dealing with the issue by, among other things, discounting and disparaging climate science, mispresenting scientific findings, and attempting to discredit climate scientists. These activities are documented in great detail in How Americans Were Deliberately Misled about Climate Change, a report I recently co-authored, as well as in my 2010 book and 2014 film, Merchants of Doubt.

A key aspect of the fossil-fuel industry’s disinformation campaign was the mobilization of “third-party allies”: organizations and groups with which it would collaborate and that, in some cases, it would be responsible for creating.

In the 1990s, these allied outfits included the Global Climate Coalition, the Cooler Heads Coalition, Informed Citizens for the Environment, and the Greening Earth Society. Like ExxonMobil, such groups endlessly promoted a public message of denial and doubt: that we weren’t really sure if climate change was happening; that the science wasn’t settled; that humanity could, in any case, readily adapt at a later date to any changes that did occur; and that addressing climate change directly would wreck the American economy. Two of these groups — Informed Citizens for the Environment and the Greening Earth Society — were, in fact, astroturf organizations, created and funded by a coal industry trade association but dressed up to look like grass-roots citizens’ action organizations.

Similar messaging was pursued by a network of think tanks promoting free market solutions to social problems, many with ties to the fossil-fuel industry. These included the George C. Marshall Institute, the Cato Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Heartland Institute. Often their politically motivated contrarian claims were presented in formats that make them look like the scientific reports whose findings they were contradicting.

In 2009, for instance, the Cato Institute issued a report that precisely mimicked the format, layout, and structure of the government’s U.S. National Climate Assessment. Of course, it made claims thoroughly at odds with the actual report’s science. The industry also promoted disinformation through its trade associations, including the American Legislative Exchange Council, the American Petroleum Institute, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, and the National Association of Manufacturers.

Both think tanks and trade organizations have been involved in personal attacks on the reputations of scientists. One of the earliest documented was on climate scientist Benjamin Santer at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory who showed that the observed increase in global temperatures could not be attributed to increased solar radiation. He served as the lead author of the Second Assessment Report of the U.N.’s prestigious Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, responsible for the 1995 conclusion that “the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human impact on the climate system.” Santer became the target of a vicious, arguably defamatory attack by physicists from the George C. Marshall Institute and the Global Climate Coalition, who accused him of fraud. Other climate scientists, including Michael Mann, Jonathan Overpeck, Malcolm Hughes, Ray Bradley, Katharine Hayhoe, Kevin Trenberth, and, I should note, myself, have been subject to harassment, investigation, hacked emails, and politically motivated freedom-of-information attacks.

How to Play Climate Change for a Fool

When it came to industry disinformation, the role of third-party allies was on full display at the House Committee on Oversight hearings on climate change in late October. As their sole witness, the Republicans on that committee invited Mandy Gunasekera, the founder and president of Energy45, a group whose purpose, in its own words, is to “support the Trump energy agenda.”

Energy45 is part of a group known, bluntly enough, as the CO2 Coalition and is a perfect example of what I’ve long thought of as zombie denialism in which older players spouting industry arguments suddenly reappear in new forms. In this case, in the 1990s and early 2000s, the George C. Marshall Institute was a leader in climate-change disinformation. From 1974-1999, its director, William O’Keefe, had also been the executive vice president and later CEO of the 🦖 American Petroleum Institute. The Marshall Institute itself closed in 2015, only to re-emerge a few years later as the CO2 Coalition.

The comments of 🐘 Republican committee members offer a sense of just how deeply the climate-change disinformation campaign is now lodged in the heart of the Trump administration and congressional 🐘 Republicans as 2019 draws to an end and the planet visibly heats. Consider just six of their “facts”:

1) The misleading claim that climate change will be “mild and manageable.” There is no scientific evidence to support this. On the contrary, literally hundreds of scientific reports over the past few decades, including those U.S. National Climate Assessments, have affirmed that any warming above 2 degrees Centigrade will lead to grave and perhaps catastrophic effects on “health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human security, and economic growth.” The U.N.’s IPCC has recently noted that avoiding the worst impacts of global warming will “require rapid and far-reaching transitions in energy… infrastructure… and industrial systems.”

Recent events surrounding Hurricanes Sandy, Michael, Harvey, Maria, and Dorian, as well as the devastating wildfire at the ironically named town of Paradise, California, in 2018 and the fires across much of that state this fall, have shown that the impacts of climate change are already part of our lives and becoming unmanageable. Or if you want another sign of where this country is at this moment, consider a new report from the Army War College indicating that “the Department of Defense (DoD) is precariously unprepared for the national security implications of climate change-induced global security challenges.” And if the Pentagon isn’t prepared to manage climate change, it’s hard to imagine any part of the U.S. government that might be.

2) The misleading claim that global prosperity is actually being driven by fossil fuels. No one denies that fossil fuels drove the Industrial Revolution and, in doing so, contributed substantively to rising living standards for hundreds of millions of people in Europe, North America, and parts of Asia. But the claim that fossil fuels are the essence of global prosperity today is, at best, a half-truth because what is at stake here isn’t the past but the future. Disruptive climate change fueled by greenhouse gas emissions from the use of oil, coal, and natural gas now threatens both the prosperity that parts of this planet have already achieved and future economic growth of just about any sort. Nicholas Stern, the former chief economist of the World Bank and one of the foremost experts on the economics of climate change, has put our situation succinctly this way: “High carbon growth self-destructs.”

3) A misleading claim that fossil fuels represent “cheap energy.” Fossil fuels are not cheap. When their external costs are included — that is, not just the price of extracting, distributing, and profiting from them, but what it will cost in all our lives once you add in the fires, extreme storms, flooding, health effects, and everything else that their carbon emissions into the atmosphere will bring about — they couldn’t be more expensive. The International Monetary Fund estimates that the cost to consumers above and beyond what we pay at the pump or in our electricity bills already comes to more than $5 trillion dollars annually. That’s trillion, not billion. Put another way, we are all paying a massive, largely unnoticed subsidy to the oil, gas, and coal industry to destroy our civilization. Among other things, those subsidies already “damage the environment, caus[e]… premature deaths through local air pollution, [and] exacerbat[e] congestion and other adverse side effects of vehicle use.”

4) A misleading claim about poverty and fossil fuels. That fossil fuels are the solution to the energy needs of the world’s poor is a tale being heavily promoted by ExxonMobil, among others. The idea that ExxonMobil is suddenly concerned about the plight of the global poor is, of course, laughable or its executives wouldn’t be planning (as they are) for significant increases in fossil-fuel production between now and 2030, while downplaying the threat of climate change. As Pope Francis, global justice leader Mary Robinson, and former U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon — as well as countless scientists and advocates of poverty reduction and global justice — have repeatedly emphasized, climate change will, above all, hurt the poor. It is they who will first be uprooted from their homes (and homelands); it is they who will be migrating into an increasingly hostile and walled-in world; it is they who will truly feel the heat, literal and figurative, of it all. A fossil-fuel company that cared about the poor would obviously not be committed, above all else, to pursuing a business model based on oil and gas exploration and development. The cynicism of this argument is truly astonishing.

Moreover, while it’s true that the poor need affordable energy, it is not true that they need fossil fuels. More than a billion people worldwide lack access (or, at least, reliable access) to electricity, but many of them also lack access to an electricity grid, which means fossil fuels are of little use to them. For such communities, solar and wind power are the only reasonable ways to go, the only ones that could rapidly and affordably be put in place and made available.

5) Misleading assertions about the costs of renewable energy. The cheap fossil fuel narrative is regularly coupled with misleading assertions about the allegedly high costs of renewable energy. According to Bloomberg News, however, in two-thirds of the world, solar is already the cheapest form of newly installed electricity generation, cheaper than nuclear, natural gas, or coal. Improvements in energy storage are needed to maximize the penetration of renewables, particularly in developed countries, but such improvements are happening quickly. Between 2010 and 2017, the price of battery storage decreased a startling 79% and most experts believe that, in the near future, many of the storage problems can and will be solved.

6) The false claim that, under President Trump, the US has actually cut greenhouse gas emissions. Republicans have claimed not only that such emissions have fallen but that the United States under President Trump has done more to reduce emissions than any other country on the planet. One environmental reporter, who has described herself as “accustomed to hearing a lot of misinformation” about climate change, characterized this statement as “brazenly false.” In fact, U.S. CO2 emissions spiked in 2018, increasing by 3.1% over 2017. Methane emissions are also on the rise and President Trump’s proposal to rollback methane standards will ensure that unhappy trend continues.

Science Isn’t Enough

And by the way, when it comes to the oil companies, that’s just to start down a far longer list of misinformation and false claims they’ve been peddling for years. In our 2010 book, Merchants of Doubt, Erik Conway and I showed that the strategies and tactics used by Big Energy to deny the harm of fossil-fuel use were, in many cases, remarkably similar to those long used by the tobacco industry to deny the harm of tobacco use — and this was no coincidence. Many of the same PR firms, advertising agencies, and institutions were involved in both cases.

The tobacco industry was finally prosecuted by the Department of Justice, in part because of the ways in which the individual companies coordinated with each other and with third-party allies to present false information to consumers. Through congressional hearings and legal discovery, the industry was pegged with a wide range of activities it funded to mislead the American people. Something similar has occurred with Big Energy and the harm fossil fuels are doing to our lives, our civilization, our planet.

Still, a crucial question about the fossil-fuel industry remains to be fully explored: Which of its companies have funded the activities of the trade organizations and other third-party allies who deny the facts about climate change? In some cases, we already know the answers. In 2006, for instance, the Royal Society of the United Kingdom documented ExxonMobil’s funding of 39 organizations that promoted “inaccurate and misleading” views of climate science. The Society was able to identify $2.9 million spent to that end by that company in the year 2005 alone. That, of course, was just one year and clearly anything but the whole story.

Nearly all of these third-party allies are incorporated as 501(c)(3) institutions, which means they must be non-profit and nonpartisan. Often they claim to be involved in education (though mis-education would be the more accurate term). But they are clearly also involved in supporting an industry — Big Energy — that couldn’t be more for-profit and they have done many things to support what could only be called a partisan political agenda as well. After all, by its own admission, Energy45, to take just one example, exists to support the “Trump Energy Agenda.”

I’m an educator, not a lawyer, but as one I can say with confidence that the activities of these organizations are the opposite of educational. Typically, the Heartland Institute, for instance, has explicitly targeted schoolteachers with disinformation. In 2017, the institute sent a booklet to more than 200,000 of them, repeating the oft-cited contrarian claims that climate science is still a highly unsettled subject and that, even if climate change were occurring, it “would probably not be harmful.” Of this booklet, the director of the National Center for Science Education said, “It’s not science, but it’s dressed up to look like science. It’s clearly intended to confuse teachers.” The National Science Teaching Association has called it “propaganda” and advised teachers to place their copies in the recycling bin.

Yet, as much as we know about the activities of Heartland and other third-party allies of the fossil-fuel industry, because of loopholes in our laws we still lack basic information about who has funded and sustained them. Much of the funding at the moment still qualifies as “dark money.” Isn’t it time for citizens to demand that Congress investigate this network, as it and the Department of Justice once investigated the tobacco industry and its networks?

ExxonMobil loves to accuse me of being “an activist.” I am, in fact, a teacher and a scholar. Most of the time, I’d rather be home working on my next book, but that increasingly seems like less of an option when Big Energy’s climate-change scam is ongoing and our civilization is, quite literally, at stake. When citizens are inactive, democracy fails — and this time, if democracy fails, as burning California shows, so much else could fail as well. Science isn’t enough. The rest of us are needed. And we are needed now.

Naomi Oreskes is professor of the history of science and affiliated professor of earth and planetary sciences at Harvard University. She is coauthor, with Erik Conway, of Merchants of Doubt. Her latest book is Why Trust Science?

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/11/14/the-greatest-scam-in-history/

 The 🦕🦖 Hydrocarbon 👹 Hellspawn Fossil Fuelers DID THE Clean Energy  Inventions suppressing, Climate Trashing, human health depleting CRIME, but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks 🦀, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or   PAYING THE FINE! Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!
« Last Edit: November 22, 2019, 12:37:39 pm by AGelbert »
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31408
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Make Nexus Hot News part of your morning: click here to subscribe.

Novemebr 22, 2019



Next Generation of  🐘 GOP Might Actually Be Serious About Abandoning Denial 🧐

Yesterday we offered Charles Koch no quarter for his supposed dropping of denial, and we’ve been similarly skeptical of other fossil fuel industry and GOP attempts to shift how the party talks about climate while maintaining a pro-fossil fuel and therefore anti-climate policy stance.

But, credit where it’s due, there does seem to be a real source of resistance to denial coming from within the GOP at the lowest level. As Scott Waldman reported in E&E yesterday, it seems the CO2 Coalition is running into trouble getting meetings with congressional Republicans, because they’re being blocked by young Republican staffers.

On the other hand, the conservative, youth-oriented carbon-tax-supporting Alliance for Market Solutions has apparently been getting plenty of meetings, and told Waldman they’ve briefed dozens of Republican House members and only ran into one denier. The group’s executive director Alex Flint said that groups like the CO2 Coalition should recognize that the “era of climate denialism has passed.”

Why? Because, Flint explained, “the college students that end up working in Congress are generally pretty smart, so you’re going to have a hard time trying to fool them with climate denialism.”

Unfortunatel, deniers likely recognize this fact. That’s why they’ve also been targeting colleges and universities as a place to spread their false gospel, teaming up with pro-Trump college propaganda group Turning Points USA (known for its diaper-wearing stunts and racism) and CFACT, which has long been a funnel for getting fossil fuel money into campuses.

And this is where CO2 Coalition’s Caleb Rossiter reveals that they’re not even trying to convince students that denial offers an intellectually coherent counter-argument. Rather, they say they’re just asking questions, the well-known strategy for conspiracy-mongering. “That’s a victory for us, if young people say, ‘Oh I never knew there was another way to look at these data or conclusions about the IPCC’s data on hurricanes or what CO2 does to plants.’ For us, that’s just the opening to a conversation.”

As always, denial is not about an honest argument, but about selling just a sliver of doubt, just planting a seed of deception that can then be nurtured by the larger big oil denial ecosystem.

In the meantime, there are still plenty of Congressional deniers. Waldman identifies Reps. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) and James Comer (R-KY) as having taken meetings with the CO2 Coalition, and then “repeat[ing] the group’s talking points in public committee meetings.”

Still, if the CO2 Coalition is willing to complain to a reporter about being shut out of Congressional meetings by young staffers, they must really be struggling to be seen as relevant.

And that struggle will only continue as more younger conservatives who have grown up in this changed climate rise in the ranks and replace their older and more denial-friendly counterparts.

So we can only hope that CO2 Coalition’s attempts to get past smart young conservatives continue to be met with little more than: Ok, Boomer.

Read more:

Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

 

+-Recent Topics

Carbon Neutral Buildings by AGelbert
December 13, 2019, 07:59:14 pm

🌟 IMPEACHMENT SCORE 🌠 by AGelbert
December 13, 2019, 07:08:51 pm

BREXIT by AGelbert
December 13, 2019, 06:54:11 pm

Creeping Police State by AGelbert
December 13, 2019, 05:50:28 pm

Apocalyptic Humor by AGelbert
December 13, 2019, 05:29:11 pm

🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️ by AGelbert
December 13, 2019, 05:25:40 pm

Doomstead Diner Daily by AGelbert
December 13, 2019, 03:34:52 pm

Non-routine News by AGelbert
December 13, 2019, 03:02:26 pm

2020 Presidential Election by AGelbert
December 12, 2019, 11:01:53 pm

Comic Relief by AGelbert
December 12, 2019, 10:45:57 pm