A point of amusement for me a week back on Twitter/X was a situation surrounding a volcanoes enthusiast going off topic by asserting the European heat deaths were ‘blood on the hands of people behind Big Oil-funded lies’ – meaning industry deception campaigns, no doubt. The famous Tom Nelson replied by pointing out how there was no evidence to back up the claim. I’ve detailed that problem right here at GelbspanFiles since 2013. Meanwhile, an environmentalist decided to counter Tom with ‘proof’ that ‘deception campaigns’ happened by recommending him to read the “a bit dated” Naomi Oreskes Merchants of Doubt book, implying the book compared Big Oil ‘misinformation mechanisms’ to ‘pro nuclear weapons / pro tobacco mechanisms.’ The comment there – likely well-intentioned and certainly believed by the person posting it – is a classic example of intellectual dishonesty – a person essentially lying to the public and to themself. I own a copy of that book, nowhere within it is evidence of skeptical climate scientists advocating use of nuclear weapons or even remotely being pro-tobacco. My response to that commenter was to read my SPM on Oreskes, to comprehend just how much disinformation Oreskes generates. But my recommendation goes much farther – the same basic accusation may end up in some form when the Supreme Court takes up a discussion about the Boulder v Suncor lawsuit.
Attorney presenting arguments on behalf of energy companies: … as it concerns so-called ‘evidence’ sourcing from Naomi Oreskes ….
Justices Sotomayor / Kagan / Jackson: “I must object here, what’s the relevance of bringing up her name?”
Attorney: “Goes to credibility. These cases hinge on her claims about industry-orchestrated misinformation – she’s the one putting out all the misinformation.”
She’s gotten away with all she puts out because nobody major – such as a potential reference to her authoritative assertions within arguments at a Supreme Court hearing – has ever illustrated just how hugely crippling the problem is. Continue reading
