Two things: First, in order to fully understand where we are in the issue of man-caused global warming, it’s best if everyone understands how we got here. Second, one of the hallmarks of the extreme far-left is their propensity for psychological projection; doing, saying or believing what they accuse their opponents of doing, saying or believing.

So, when far-left extreme enviro-activists say now that “Exxon Knew” years ago about the true reality of the the overall global warming science situation but later used disinformation campaigns to steer the public in the opposite direction, are they inadvertently admitting that …….

…. Greenpeace knew about the true reality of the the overall global warming science situation and felt compelled to spread disinformation to support a false position?

A July 1992 New Republic article, “Hot air and global warming: Gregg Easterbrook questions the environmentalist rhetoric that would have us believe our planet is on its last legs” suggests that might be true via the following bit regarding a survey Greenpeace undertook at the time (my screencaptures of the text come from the more appropriately named Legacy Tobacco Documents Library’s lousy scan of the original print version):

In exemplary doublespeak, some enviros put forth that dissenting views should be suppressed in the name of balance. Mr Gore, for example, says reporters should attach little weight to scientists who question greenhouse emergency claims, because perhaps 2 per cent of credentialed researchers feel that way. This simply isn’t true. Greenpeace recently surveyed climatologists, doubtless hoping for evidence of global warming panic; instead, it found that the largest group of respondents, 47 per cent, believe a runaway greenhouse effect is almost impossible.

But Easterbrook’s article also had this prescient note:

Ozone depletion someday may imperil life, but with CFCs being banned, there’s little left to advocate, unless you know of a means to plug volcanos. Global warming holds out the appeal of a sweeping calamity, a bad science fiction movie come true. Enviros now seem almost to be rooting for temperature increases.

Now, consider what happened right around the time of Easterbrook’s article, and what happened within the next eight years, via these screencapture link items:

• In March 1992, a Washington Post article about ozone layer depletion over the Arctic Circle stated,

Karen Lohr, ozone project director for the Greenpeace environmental group in Washington, said that Greenpeace is planning to launch an outreach program to make natives of northern Canada aware of the dangers of increased radiation. Lohr said that of greatest concern to Greenpeace is the long-term effects of increased radiation on the Arctic’s food chain. “It won’t be surprising to see blind polar bears up there,” Lohr added.

• Oops. Maybe Greenpeace didn’t think blind polar bears were that great of a concern. Rather than stick with such a famous and influential international group that focused on saving animals from human harm, Lohr left to help John Passacantando create the Ozone Action group in 1992 (or ’93, depending on which contradictory date pops up)
• By October 1993, a major news magazine already recognized how a concern about ozone depletion was waning, and where the next concern should ramp up. (more on that hugely suspect media alert here)
• Meanwhile, in 1994, Ozone Action focused solely on ozone depletion.
• In 1995, Ozone Action split their focus to include global warming ….. right around the time when they and Ross Gelbspan somehow “obtained” a particular set of supposedly leaked coal industry documents.
• By 2000, Ozone Action focused solely on global warming, as stated by their Science Policy Director, Kert Davies.
• By 2000, Greenpeace’s top administration was in total turmoil, and was bleeding support, revenue, and overall meaningfulness to such an extent that it angered pro-animal activists.
• And also in 2000, as noted immediately above and detailed in the New York Times, Passacantando merged Ozone Action into Greenpeace USA and took over its name along with becoming its Executive Director. Kert Davies subsequently joined him, to head Greenpeace’s ExxonSecrets wing. (hence my term the 2000 – 2014 era of that revamped organization being “Greenpeace USA née Ozone Action”)

See how awkward that development became? The late IPCC climate scientist Dr Stephen Schneider brought up this fatal problem in his 2002 “Climate Change Policy: A Survey” book regarding Greenpeace USA’s old name:

It doesn’t help that one of the most visible environmental advocacy groups fighting for action against global warming was called Ozone Action.

But much the way Karen Lohr abandoned one of the most prominent environmental organizations fighting ozone depletion, both John Passacantando and Kert Davies abandoned, in 2009 and 2013, respectively, one of the most prominent environmental organizations fighting global warming where they were the top administrators.

But where were both Passacantando and Davies seen much more recently? In efforts to hammering the idea that “#ExxonKnew” years ago about the true reality of the the overall global warming science situation.

Technically, I should have titled this blog post “#GreenpeaceNéeOzoneActionKnew,” but readers here will get the basic idea of my point.

No matter where you go in the #ExxonKnew overall accusation, there you are with the accusation’s core evidence about fossil fuel companies knowing their product caused catastrophic man-caused global warming, but created disinformation campaigns with the express strategy to “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact” in the minds of an ignorant public that consisted of “older, less educated males” and “younger, lower-income women.” Core evidence which I have detailed as being worthless to prove the accusation because it was dead on arrival where it was first proposed and never ultimately acted on.

So, once again, when enviro-activists say Exxon knew the science but spread disinformation to cover that up, are they actually telling us that a core clique pushing that false accusation knew the actual science situation, but felt compelled to spread disinformation about the credibility of skeptic climate scientists to cover that up? When they hint how big name fossil fuel company executives need to come clean about misleading the public, are they instead pointing an arrow the size of Texas at their own big name environmental organization executives?