WTF How about something specific?? What the heck are you even talking about now?
A history of malicious attacks against climate science education and understanding.
I share this because I believe understanding AGW inaction also requires understanding the decades of deliberate calculated deception regarding climate science findings. (Best wishes, Peter Miesler, citizenschallenge@gmail.com)
When I graduated high school in â73 I was reasonable up to date on the fundamental state of climate science findings and conclusions. Even back then, we knew the science was clear, within reasonable error margins. Many of us graduating students truly felt that the next few decades would see a profound societal change manifested in a coalescing effort to intelligently meet the challenges that we humans were obviously creating for ourselves and this living planet we depended on for everything.
Even if the speed and exact unfolding of the coming climate crisis and serious disruption was âuncertainâ the science was absolutely positive that increasing our atmospheric insulation, via CO2 , would warm our climate engine and that cascading consequences would adversely impact our home planetâs biosphere, in turn, threaten every aspect of our complex global society.
Our global heat and moisture distribution engine would and is harboring ever increasing heat and energy. This, in turn would, and is, increase atmospheric moisture levels, thereby altering and intensifying global weather patterns. As witnessed by infrastructure destroying weather event, as we have been witnessing. Not to mention the epochal consequences that flushing all this extra CO2 into our global oceans will be progressively triggering.
In the human world, few wanted to hear about it, even fewer were willing to really listen to the science and think through the implications. Why?
Because scientistsâ mathematically rational conclusions demanded that unacceptable choices be faced.
Either, we slow down our exponential growth in humans and our consumption expectations, or we would overshoot our finite Earthâs ability to sustain us. Nothing political about it, fundamental geophysics and math.
From a human, societal, perspective it demanded a willingness to learn more about Earthâs biosphere and climate engine, along with a willingness to make moderation a virtue. To focus on preparing infrastructure for the new hydrological realities of drought and torrential storms, rising waters and dropping water tables, among others.
To become more aware and attentive to Earthâs needs and be willing to give a little back. Had we simply slowed down a little, not allowed private corporations to endlessly merge until they are more powerful than governments.
What if rather than "Ayn Randianâ philosophy leading global financial planning and operations of the â70s, â80s, â90s, and so on, if human and environmental interests had become an integral part of corporate fiduciary responsibly? What if regulations had been recognized for the safety and security they offered humans and society? Sure, no billionaires today, but would that really have been that bad?
But that didnât happen, instead it was peddle to the metal, increasing consumption and accumulating the most toys seemed to become priority one, with Earth (& future) meriting little more than lip-service and a game of Kicking the Can Down the Road.
Rather than our public dialogue becoming a good-faith marketplace for honestly presenting findings and facts and engaging in constructive debate, it descended into a marketplace for calculated deception resulting in general stupefaction, thanks to the ruthless fraud against science and We The People that is documented in the following:
âExxonâs Climate Denial History: A Timelineâ
https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/fighting-climate-chaos/exxon-and-the-oil-industry-knew-about-climate-crisis/exxons-climate-denial-history-a-timeline/
âWhat Big Oil knew about climate change, in its own wordsâ
Benjamin Franta, October 28, 2021, The Conversation
What Big Oil knew about climate change, in its own words
âOil Industryâs Public Climate Denial Campaign Dates Back to at Least 1980, Nearly a Decade Earlier Than Previously Thoughtâ
By Nick Cunningham, Jan 15, 2021, Desmog.com
Oil Industryâs Public Climate Denial Campaign Dates Back to at Least 1980, Nearly a Decade Earlier Than Previously Thought - DeSmog
The American Petroleum Institute (API), the leading oil and gas industry trade group, publicly pushed misleading information on climate change as early as 1980 âŚ
An organized campaign of climate disinformation is generally thought to have begun around 1989 with the formation of the Global Climate Coalition, an industry front group aimed at protecting fossil fuel interests, before it coalesced into a more active campaign of climate denial in the 1990s, which included attacking climate scientists, muddying the waters on climate science, and promoting climate deniers. API was one of the coalitionâs leading members, along with Exxon (later ExxonMobil).
But Franta points to a policy booklet published by API in 1980 as evidence âŚ
Naomi Oreskes, âMerchants of Doubtâ: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming, 2010. (New York: Bloomsbury Press.)
âExxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years agoâ
A new investigation shows the oil company understood the science before it became a public issue and spent millions to promote misinformation
by Shannon Hall, October 26, 2015
âTracing Big Oilâs PR war to delay action on climate changeâ
Alvin Powell, Harvard Staff Writer, September 28, 2021
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/09/oil-companies-discourage-climate-action
âClimate disinformation leaves lasting mark as world heatsâ
By David Klepper, July 27, 2022
APNews.com/article/wildfires-science-fires American Petroleum Institute
âDocuments Show How Polluting Industries Mobilized to Block Climate Actionâ
Since its inception, the IPCC itself has been the target of corporate obstructionism.
Amy Westervelt, April 12 2022, The Intercept
How Polluting Industries Mobilized to Block Climate Action
"How a powerful US lobby group helps big oil to block climate actionâ
Chris McGreal, July 19, 2021, The Guardian
TheGuardian.com/environment/2021
âRepublican War on Scienceâ
Chris Mooney, 2005, Basic Books (ISBN 9780465046751)
âClimate Science Contrarianâs Hall of Shameâ
Whatâs Up With That Watts . blogspot . com
" Unauthorized notes, ~ Ben Santer ~ The General Public: Why Such Resistance?" (5/23/11)
citizenschallenge.blogspot.com
âClimate Contrarian Myths sorted by taxonomyâ
âThe consensus-building process of the IPCCâ (2/23/12)
SkepticalScience.com
Why is all of this significant? In the words of Chris Mooney:
âIf you canât admit it when youâre wrong, you also canât know when youâre right.
âIf you donât hold your opinions and beliefs tentatively, subject them to scrutiny, and then try to parse out which of them truly hold weight, then you run the risk of rushing headlong into all manner of self-serving biases. âŚâ
"And please note: This has nothing to do with whether or not youâre smart. Smart people (like Anthony Watts) are in fact particularly vulnerable to this problem, because theyâre extra good at rationalizing their views. Even as theyâre super awesome at finding apparent problems with the arguments of those who disagree with them, and arguing back against their opponents, theyâre often oblivious of their own biases.
âBut it doesnât matter how many great arguments you can spin out to defend what you believe, if you canât also perceive where your beliefs might be untrue.
âWithout self criticism, all your self-supporting arguments amount to little more than spinning your wheelsâwhile you remain stuck in the mud.â DeSmogBlog.com - Nov. 16, 2011
Oh and yes I wrote this before I actually listen to the panel discussion, but as with so many before they fulfilled my prediction, fear, that the 4 person panel would totally ignore the facts and problems around the strategic climate science disinformation campaigns. Oh but plenty of time for pie in the sky potential salvations from AGW consequences.
Oh and reduction was mentioned all of once, in a hour and a half. I deftly managed to get the last question in and pointed out the ignored elephant in the room, then told student I had must read info, for the curious.
I stood at the door and simply held my flier, so only those who were actually interested took a copy. Iâll admit I was gratified by the interest.
