I can’t emphasize this enough: Naomi Oreskes is presented at congressional hearings and elsewhere as an expert on so-called ‘fossil fuel industry disinformation campaigns’ – her own biography introductions at the hearings imply as much. Investigators / objective reporters / law firms representing the defendants in the “ExxonKnew” lawsuits / congressional staffers can either accept what she says or what is said about her work without question, essentially enabling her to continually to get away with what she’s been doing since 2003, or they can deeply cross examine her work for the first time ever, to find out if there’s any actual merit to the assertions she’s made over the last two decades, such as those contained within in her 2015 “Merchants of Doubt” documentary movie. As I’ve shown in Parts 1, 2 and 3, her movie – supposedly exposing fossil fuel industry deception downplaying the harm of global warming – has every appearance itself of deceptively impugning the integrity of those criticizing the idea of catastrophic man-caused global warming. She and her associates fare no better in Part 4 here, the the overarching problem of the movie being her and her associates’ psychological projection hole they’ve dug for themselves that begins to resemble one the virtual size of an open pit mine.

It’s quite a slog to go through this movie. I’m doing it so objective reporters / energy company defendant law firms / potential prosecutors don’t have to.

Continuing where I left off in Part 3 at the 50 minute point, what follows right afterward is basically an extended character assassination effort against critics of catastrophic man-caused global warming.

50:01, John Passacantando, Former Executive Director, Greenpeace USA [initially with former Ozone Action / Greenpeace subordinate Kert Davies partly obscured by a flickering slide projector light]: Nobody’s gonna believe ExxonMobil. But if they can say it through somebody else who seems independent, there’s power in that for them.

Not for free, of course. Critics paid to reposition global warming as theory rather than fact. Not that Passacantando or Oreskes or Davies has ever offered a viable piece of evidence that any such corruption ever happened. Davies’ and Passacantando’s and Oreskes’ cornerstone ( cornerstone ! ) evidence – that exact ‘memo’ phrase – was rejected proposal, never implemented in any form anywhere. It is literally the best evidence they have in their arsenal.

[Continuing, as the screen shows critics, the last of which before Naomi Oreskes returns, is the CATO Institute’s Dr Patrick Michaels.]

Passacantando: It creates a new cast of characters, these people who become well-known for casting doubt on global warming.
Oreskes: What these institutes do is they promote their own “experts” as contrary experts, who give you the “other side” of the issue. And journalists fall for it, fall for it lock, stock, and barrel.

Speaking of worthless cornerstone ‘evidence’ / Dr Michaels / Kert Davies, (via his CIC / Climate Files website) — these accusers are that predictable. Oh … also Oreskes, let me emphasize. Whadayaknow about that? Her 2019-2023 amicus briefs for “ExxonKnew” lawsuits plaintiffs mention a letter Dr Michaels wrote on behalf of the ICE public relations campaign … the same identical letter Kert Davies refers to at his CIC timeline for Dr Michaels. One more thing: Oreskes subscribes the same second-best worthless ‘leaked memos’ evidence that Kert Davies does – and she cites Davies as her source for them.

Meanwhile, notice Oreskes’ above journalists fall for it, fall for it lock, stock, and barrel remark about balanced journalism giving two sides of an issue. Where does that talking point swipe at reporters trace back to? Ross Gelbspan, the same way the false ‘inconsistent skeptic narratives’ talking point in her movie traces to Gelbspan, which I noted in Part 3.

50:38, [brief news interview clips of critics’ faces, Oreskes remarks about “dueling experts,” followed by this regarding the critics]
Oreskes: If you actually ask what are their credentials,the answer’s often very little, sometimes none.

At this point of the movie, the irony of her statement is breathtaking. So far, both the late Dr Singer and the late Dr Michaels were both PhD-level climate scientists. On her side, the solitary James Hansen is a climate scientist. The former GMI employee-turned-motorcycle-mechanic trashing Bill O’Keefe has a Ph.D. in political philosophy. The guy in the movie’s several ‘deception comparison scenes’ is only a magician. The director of the Skeptic Society who claimed to once be a skeptic of man-caused global warming has a Ph.D. in the history of science. Oreskes herself is no more than a PhD-level history professor with some geology work experience. Dr Ben Santer, on her side will come up shortly, he is a climate scientist. Dr Michael Mann will also appear, critics will say his dendrologist experience hardly qualifies him as a climate scientist. Passacantando & Davies? Both probably have less actual science education of any kind than I do.

But continuing on the credibility-bashing theme, Oreskes’ movie begins an 8½ minute-long section starting at the 51:30 point on ClimateDepot’s Marc Morano. … without ever actually disputing any material in Morano’s website. Not one word. And when climate scientists Dr Ben Santer and Dr Michael Mann finally appear, the insinuation is that Morano was responsible for attacks against them.

56:23, Dr Ben Santer, Climate Scientist: As a scientist, you’re trained to defend the science that you do. What you don’t expect is to have people threaten you with all kinds of dire consequences for continuing to do the research that you do. I was contacted by the IPCC to act as convening lead author for one chapter of the second assessment report. That final sentence, “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate” was finalized at the end of November, 1995. I had no idea that my life would be so dramatically changed by that one sentence. These are a few emails from a large number of emails that I received.
[screen shows alleged hate emails dating from 2010]
Marc Morano: It’s possible I posted Santer’s email in the early days of Climate Depot. He’s far from the only one I’ve done that to.
[Dr Michael Mann and climate scientist Dr Katharine Hayhoe (that Dr Hayhoe) subsequently appear, complaining about hate-filled emails.

The email addresses of scientists at universities are in the public domain. As a former staffer for Rush Limbaugh, Morano knows just as I do what Limbaugh meant when he said he had the smartest listeners in American media. This would apply to readers of ClimateDepot, I’ve met many in person and have emailed with others. We are not violent by any means, but we do expect answers to our serious questions. Drs Mann and Hayhoe flee in terror from people questioning their positions. Dr Mann appears to harbor thoughts of physical violence. As did – clearly – Dr Santer.

56:22, Ben Santer: Well, I think the most disturbing emails and letters were ones that suggest there will be harm to you, direct physical harm, to you and your family.
Morano: I don’t know what his complaint is. I’ll give you the philosophy behind it. … The public is appropriately angry at these scientists. No one’s advocating violence, but it is refreshing to see these scientists hear from the public. I think people should be thanking me. I was doing a service. People go, “Oh, your death threats.” I get death threats. I enjoy them.

Objective reporters – and probing courtroom cross examiners – might ask these ‘scientist victims’ what the ratio is between the vile hate email and the very constructive criticism email. I have little doubt that Marc Morano would gladly share the ratio of counter-opposite figures – far beyond the clickable examples here – showing a majority of spectacularly uninformed haters vs pro-global warming educated individuals.

58:32, Oreskes: Every time we see the world beginning to act on the science, we see some kind of attack designed to undermine it. In 1995, the IPCC comes out with its second assessment report that says …”Yes, there’s climate change.” What do we get? A massive attack on Ben Santer, who’s the lead author of the key chapter. In the second case, before the run-up to the Kyoto negotiations, when it looked like the world was going to agree, we had the Oregon Petition. It’s a completely discredited document. … Third time, Copenhagen. … Suddenly, we see this release of stolen emails. Lines taken out of context to make it seem as if scientists were involved in nefarious activities.

In order of the above unsupportable assertions:

• I detailed in this blog post how Santer himself contradicted Oreskes in saying he did not feel personally attacked. It’s another of her huge narrative derailments.
• I detailed the elemental straightforward criticisms of how he altered an IPCC report to match a more extreme IPCC Summary.
• One single planted fake name in the Oregon Petition did not discredit the 31,000 other signatures. Who planted the fake signature? One of Passacantando’s Ozone Action operatives, while he made false claims about other ‘fake names’ – a problem I detailed at length here.
• As was abundantly obvious in reporting at WUWT, ClimateAudit, Tom Nelson’s blog, and elsewhere in which the emails could be read in their full context, scientists were indeed involved in nefarious activities.

The movie continues with defensive “nothing to see here in Climategate, move along” remarks from Michael Shermer and Passacantando, summarized by this,

1:00:29, Oreskes: It’s all about distraction, it’s all about confusion. It’s about preventing you from looking where the action really is, which is in the science.
Jamy Ian Swiss, Magician: Misdirection is the use of the little lie to sell the big lie. … misdirection is about focus. It’s not so much about directing away, or misdirecting, it’s about direction. It’s about bringing your attention to something that engages you. And then, you don’t see anything else in the frame.

Hold that specific thought until my wrap-up at the end of this post.

For the next 4½ minutes, in spectacular lack-of-self-awareness irony, “Merchants” then first misdirects its viewers with a section about tobacco industry misinformation, then about the fast food industry, followed by segment vilifying the Americans for Prosperity. ‘If those other industries deceived the public, so did Big Oil.’

The movie begins its penultimate act starting at 1:04:46 largely centered around the musings of former multi-term U.S. Congressman Bob Inglis, insinuating what happens to a ‘conservative’ Republican who dares to take the Al Gore side of the climate issue which angers the (supposedly) Koch Industries-controlled Americans for Prosperity group.

1:08:14, “Merchants” film producer Robert Kenner: What happened in your election?
Bob Inglis (former R-SC): Well, it wasn’t even close.
South Carolina news anchor: Bob Inglis ran into a buzz saw of voter frustration with incumbents. Inglis lost every county in the district.

I described the odd difference in my Dec 2023 blog post between what I remember seeing in the movie theater versus what’s in this DVD. Whatever the reason may be for the switch, the crippling problem remains. In either format, this movie could not bring herself to directly speak the name of the person who defeated Rep Inglis, Trey Gowdy. Inglis did not lose because of his questionable position on the global warming issue, he lost because the GOP primary electorate thought he was a RINO. When Oreskes basically implies the climate issue was the sole reason for Rep Inglis’ defeat, that’s arguably deliberate disinformation.

The movie wraps up, starting at the 1:15:05 point, with purely enviro-advocacy, emotion-driven viewpoints, starting with its star Naomi Oreskes, then switching to NASA scientist James Hansen and his arrest at a protest, and ending with Rep Inglis who laments, “We’re leaving our children and grandchildren a legacy of people who failed to lead …I don’t wanna be a part of that.” Skeptic climate scientists and other expert speakers – if given the opportunity – could easily spend another hour disputing the viewpoints with science facts that would give viewers migraine headaches from trying to absorb it all.

What if they were given this opportunity? The’d be met with howls of ‘don’t listen to these shills who are paid by the fossil fuel industry to deceive the public about the certain harm of man-caused global warming.’

Before the advocacy wrap-up, however, there was this spectacularly ironic statement, of which nobody in the movie had any self-awareness of what its problem is:

1:14:12, speaking as images of Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson is sworn in at a congressional hearing, John Passacantando, Former Director, Greenpeace USA: But at some point, the public catches up with you. The legal system catches up with you.
ABC News anchor Diane Sawyer: An extraordinary punishment for the country’s big cigarette companies. A federal judge said they lied, and they have to take out ads and admit it publicly. Specifically, they have to say they deliberately deceived the American public about the dangers of cigarettes …

Remember what I noted above on Oreskes saying “It’s all about preventing you from looking at where the action really is, which is in the science“? It is 100% psychological projection, as is and what Passacantando said right there.

Oreskes and her cohorts want people to focus on what their waving hands are pointing to, “crooked skeptics,” while they hope the public never sees what their other hand is doing, which is to constantly distract everyone from seeing just how unsettled the actual climate science is, and how their ‘evidence’ proving skeptic scientists are paid illicit money to “reposition global warming as theory” is totally without merit.

At some point, the public will catch up with Oreskes, Passacantando, Davies and Gore, and the legal system will catch up with them as well.