Effective oil company disinformation on climate change

The AP and other sources are reporting that the CEO of Exxon-Mobile is disputing allegations that for decades his company has spread disinformation about climate change. AP writes:

WASHINGTON (AP) — ExxonMobil’s chief executive said Thursday that his company “does not spread disinformation regarding climate change″ as he and other oil company chiefs countered congressional allegations the industry concealed evidence about the dangers of it. 

In prepared testimony at a landmark House hearing, CEO Darren Woods said ExxonMobil “has long acknowledged the reality and risks of climate change, and it has devoted significant resources to addressing those risks.″ 

The much-anticipated hearing before the House Oversight Committee comes after months of public efforts by Democrats to obtain documents and other information on the oil industry’s role in stopping climate action over multiple decades. The appearance of the four oil executives — from ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP America and Shell — has drawn comparisons to a high-profile hearing in the 1990s with tobacco executives who famously testified that they didn’t believe nicotine was addictive.

“The fossil fuel industry has had scientific evidence about the dangers of climate change since at least 1977. Yet for decades, the industry spread denial and doubt about the harm of its products — undermining the science and preventing meaningful action on climate change even as the global climate crisis became increasingly dire,″ said Reps. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., and Ro Khanna, D-Calif.  

“Today’s staff memo shows Big Oil’s campaign to ‘greenwash’ their role in the climate crisis in action,” Maloney said. “These oil companies pay lip service to climate reforms, but behind the scenes they spend far more time lobbying to preserve their lucrative tax breaks.″

Maloney and other Democrats have focused particular ire on Exxon, after a senior lobbyist for the company was caught in a secret video bragging that Exxon had fought climate science through “shadow groups” and had targeted influential senators in an effort to weaken President Joe Biden’s climate agenda, including a bipartisan infrastructure bill and a sweeping climate and social policy bill currently moving through Congress.

In 2020, the BBC reported:

To understand what's happening today, we need to go back nearly 40 years.

Marty Hoffert leaned closer to his computer screen. He couldn't quite believe what he was seeing. It was 1981, and he was working in an area of science considered niche.

"We were just a group of geeks with some great computers," he says now, recalling that moment.

But his findings were alarming.

"I created a model that showed the Earth would be warming very significantly. And the warming would introduce climatic changes that would be unprecedented in human history. That blew my mind."

Marty Hoffert was one of the first scientists to create a model which predicted the effects of man-made climate change. And he did so while working for Exxon, one of the world's largest oil companies, which would later merge with another, Mobil.

Hoffert shared his predictions with his managers, showing them what might happen if we continued burning fossil fuels in our cars, trucks and planes.

But he noticed a clash between Exxon's own findings, and public statements made by company bosses, such as the then chief executive Lee Raymond, who said that "currently, the scientific evidence is inconclusive as to whether human activities are having a significant effect on the global climate".

"They were saying things that were contradicting their own world-class research groups," said Hoffert.

Angry, he left Exxon, and went on to become a leading academic in the field.

"What they did was immoral. They spread doubt about the dangers of climate change when their own researchers were confirming how serious a threat it was."

A 14 minute BBC podcast describes the tactics the oil industry used to sabotage efforts to tell the public about climate change and to begin responding to it. The oil industry used the same tactics to deny or downplay climate change science as the tobacco industry used to deny or downplay the addictiveness and dangers of cigarette smoking. Ruthless propaganda tactics and subversion of government by both oil and tobacco interests worked for decades to keep the public disinformed and divided, and government significantly paralyzed. Republicans but not Democrats went from ~50% believing in 2001 that human activity was the main cause of climate change, but by 2011 that had dropped to 30%. 

There were two separate realities, Republican and Democratic. By injecting political ideology and confusion over facts into climate change, inconvenient facts were easier to sweep aside. Tribal loyalty and deceptive propaganda, not facts, dictated perceptions of climate change reality for most Republicans. 

Last July, Politico wrote this:

A recently leaked draft report written by some of the world’s top climate scientists blamed disinformation and lobbying campaigns — including by Exxon Mobil — for undermining government efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increasing the dangers of global warming to society.

On Wednesday, Britain's Channel 4 broadcast a video of Exxon lobbyist Keith McCoy telling Greenpeace UK activists who were posing as headhunters that the oil giant would “aggressively fight against some of the science” including by using third-party “shadow groups.” McCoy also noted his lobbying efforts to strip climate provisions from President Joe Biden’s infrastructure proposal, many of which were dropped in a $1.2 trillion compromise framework.

The IPCC report said disinformation tactics have created “risks to society” because they have prevented governments from responding to the dangers from climate change.

Questions: 

1. Is Exxon's CEO a liar?

2. Has the fossil fuel industry deceived the American people by spreading lies and disinformation about the role of carbon fuels in climate change?

3. Has the fossil fuel industry money and lobbying significantly or mostly impaired government efforts to deal with climate change? 

The terrifying mendacity and fascism of Republican elites

Evidence of Republican Party mendacity and authoritarianism continue to accumulate. A week or so ago, Rachael Maddow reported that pro-ex-president attorney John Eastman disavowed a legal strategy memo he wrote that described how Mike Pence could have subverted the 2020 election and kept the ex-president in office. It would have been easy and effective. Legal experts believe the memo was crackpot nonsense and its implementation would have amounted to an overthrow of the government.

Maddow reported that last Friday Eastman disavowed his own memo to an interview with the National Review.

Then last night Maddow reported that in private on last Saturday, Eastman was clear that he still believes his strategy was sound and it would have been legal and effective at keeping the ex-president in power. He claimed it failed only because Mike Pence was a weak establishment Republican who refused to get on board with a rank and file Republican movement to keep the ex-president in power. An undercover reporter, Lauren Windsor, falsely posing as an ex-president supporter and person present at the 1/6 coup attempt approached Eastman on Saturday. After she dished out some flattery to Eastman about him doing God’s work, saving democracy and whatnot, she got him to speak candidly about the memo and Pence. 

Windsor to Eastman: You're doing the Lord’s work

Windsor to Eastman: Your legal strategy was totally solid

Eastman to Windsor: Yeah

Eastman to Windsor, Pence was just an 

establishment guy

In other reporting last night, Maddow reported that the same reporter, Lauren Windsor, conned Republican candidate for governor, Glenn Youngkin, into admitting that he is much more anti-abortion than he is willing to admit to the people of Virginia. The New York Times reported on Oct. 7:

Glenn Youngkin, the Republican nominee for governor of Virginia, revealed to her that he could not publicly press his anti-abortion agenda for fear of losing independent voters. 

A spokesman for Mr. Youngkin, the Republican candidate for governor in Virginia denied he had said anything privately that he had not uttered publicly, even though he told Ms. Windsor that he had to be discreet about his anti-abortion views. “When I’m governor and I have a majority in the House, we can start going on offense,” he said to her in their encounter. “But as a campaign topic, sadly, that in fact won’t win my independent votes that I have to get.”

At least in some competitive races, at least some Republican candidates feel it is sad that they have to deceive voters to get the votes they need to win elections. So, while in the midst of all-out attacks on democracy and elections, FRP (fascist Republican Party) elites are lying when they tell us they fighting hard to save democracy and elections. Meanwhile, the FRP members of congress either openly support these tactics or are complicit by their silence. FRP mendacity and fascism is nationwide and mainstream, not local or fringe crackpottery in the party.

Advocacy journalism, or immoral or unfair tactics?

The NYT commented on Lauren Windsor’s reporting tactics:

Ms. Windsor, 40, calls herself an “advocacy journalist,” though her methods fall beyond the pale of mainstream journalism, where reporters generally shy away from assuming false identities and secretly recording conversations.

She says her stings are justified by Republicans’ efforts to spread disinformation about the election and to weaken the nation’s democratic underpinnings through restrictive new voting laws and measures taking greater control over how elections are run.

“Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures,” she said in an interview. Assuming a false identity, she argued, can produce a truer record of a politician’s views. “Acting like you’re one of them — you’re going to elicit different answers than if you have a recorder in somebody’s face and they know you’re a journalist.”

While Ms. Windsor’s videos are often picked up by left-leaning news outlets, the political impact of them can be limited. Some of her Republican targets dismiss her videos as nothing they haven’t said before, in so many words.

The bait she dangles to draw out a response can be highly tendentious. “This is a Christian state, and Democrats are not Christian,” she told a cowboy-hatted Texas legislator in the Capitol in Austin.

Claiming to have been at the United States Capitol on Jan. 6, she challenged Mr. Pence about why he didn’t “stop the election from being stolen.” The former vice president didn’t bite: “Read the Constitution,” he said, before offering parting praise of her “heart.”  

Her practices have drawn inevitable comparisons to the right-wing gotcha squad Project Veritas, but she says there are crucial differences.

While Project Veritas has embedded moles in left-leaning groups and Democratic campaigns, Ms. Windsor says she avoids such methods.  

She makes her undercover recordings at public events in brief encounters. She usually uploads the full interaction to her YouTube page, The Undercurrent, or in segments on Twitter (which limits a video’s length).

Questions: 

1. Is what is reported here about Republican elites reasonably called mendacious or fascist?

2. Are Windsor's deceptive tactics to gather candid comments from Republicans who want their real beliefs hidden from voters unfair or immoral, or as some people argue, should fairness and morals[1] be mostly or completely ignored in politics because they are too subjective and/or irrational? 

3. Do candidates for elected office in a democracy, unlike political leaders in a tyranny, have any duty, legal, moral, ethical or otherwise, to be honest with voters, or is that ideal too utopian to be taken seriously, with most or all politicians mostly alike regardless of the form of government and kind of society they operate in?

4. Is the Democratic Party just as bad in terms of mendacity and authoritarianism or fascism as the FRP?

Footnote:

1. Fairness has been cited as an example of an essentially contested concept. Wikipedia writes:

Essentially contested concepts involve widespread agreement on a concept (e.g., “fairness”), but not on the best realization thereof. They are “concepts the proper use of which inevitably involves endless disputes about their proper uses on the part of their users”, and these disputes “cannot be settled by appeal to empirical evidence, linguistic usage, or the canons of logic alone.”

Morals and morality are also essentially contested concepts. From what I can tell, the FRP decided years ago that the sacred ends (single party power, wealth at the top, and Christian God in government) justify essentially all means, including lies, deceit and even illegal means when they can get away with it. 

What is the Opposite of Entropy?

 This stuck in my craw this morning while I was busy coding. As I understand it, as a system no longer maintains the energy necessary to sustain itself, either from external forces, or somehow generating it internally entropy begins to occur, and the system starts losing its form as its order is slowly subverted by chaotic forces.

Maybe I misunderstand that?

If so, then what of a hypothetical system absent any entropy at all? Would it be perfectly ordered? Is that in itself, a sort of perfect death of the system? Can it no longer grow and adapt?

I am not a student of systems theory in the general sense. There's far more that I don't know about it than anything I know about it.

Does anyone here have any insight on this? I'm not sure how to Google it because the title doesn't quite cut to the meat of what I'm wondering about.

I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Disagreement on facts and political discord cause damage

It clear and undeniable that the 2020 election is not over for the most of America's radical right. It may never be over for them. Some want some kind of revenge. Some want the ex-president put back in power right now. Some choose to believe that false crackpot conspiracies are real and true. One bit of crackpottery holds that the ex-president still is in power and is still running the country, with a plan to purge tens of thousands of deep state Democratic socialist pedophiles from government and restore God to his rightful role as a infallible dictator acting through his chosen vessel, the sacred ex-president. 

There's plenty tearing American society apart. To rationalize its main talking points, the radical right sweeps aside inconvenient facts, truths and sound reasoning. This is raw and primal. In the process, it undermines civility and democracy. The Washington Post writes on how a formerly united area in Montana has become bitterly divided. Some people are dying because of that. As usual, toxic social media is part of the mess:

KALISPELL, Mont. — By the time the third teenager had died by suicide since the start of the school year, the Flathead Valley was desperate for unity. The community had been jittery for months.

Supporters of former president Donald Trump, adamant that Joe Biden stole the 2020 election, were driving through town in pickups lined with Trump flags, Confederate flags and “Don’t Tread on Me” flags featuring a rattlesnake coiled and ready to strike at government intrusion.

The coronavirus pandemic had cleaved neighbors into camps for and against masks. A popular Facebook group featuring wildlife photos and local events had degenerated into a forum for politics, bullying and suspicion of the new people moving here.

The October death by suicide of the ninth local teenager in 16 months prompted offers of counseling, training for teachers and visits from national suicide prevention experts. But it also whiplashed into partisan recriminations, as residents lashed out in public forums against the superintendent of schools for failing to impose dress codes and discipline, against parents for not securing their plentiful firearms — used in several suicides — and against the supporters of masks and other pandemic restrictions for stifling teenagers. An issue the valley might have rallied around, in another time, risked dividing it yet again.

“Our community is going through a divorce right now,” Mark Johnson, the mayor of Kalispell, told local officials gathered at city hall to find a path forward from the tragedies, recounting a high school student telling him the hostility around him was a reminder of his parents. “The adults are arguing about what’s right and what’s wrong,” he said in an interview. “The kids are watching it happen. They don’t feel they’re on firm footing.”  

Hostility over the November election, the coronavirus and social movements have left a trail of bad blood among old-school Republicans, backers of the former president, increasingly vocal Democrats and out-of-state transplants, convulsing everything from the school district and the public library to daily interactions.  

Local businesses, politicians and ordinary people now find themselves navigating angry confrontations, and a nuanced political tradition of splitting tickets on Election Day has given way to partisanship that propelled a Republican sweep of races for governor, president and Congress in November for the first time in two decades.  

Even the Independence Day parade shifted this summer from a once-revered slice of Americana to another battle in a culture war. As thousands packed Main Street in Kalispell, the 26,000-population county seat, the Flathead Democrats’ float with a rainbow gay pride flag was heckled the length of the parade. A horse-drawn wagon bearing a “Trump 2024 No More Bulls---” flag rushed toward it, leading the Democrats to fear injury. Someone smashed the plate glass window of a bookstore along the route, then crumpled the gay pride flag displayed inside.  

Ultraconservatives newly in power backed two candidates for state office in 2020 with misdemeanor criminal records. One was Greg Gianforte, who pleaded guilty to a charge of assaulting a reporter during his campaign for the House back in 2017. (He would later be elected governor after an endorsement from Trump, who praised Gianforte’s violence.)  

Politics has animated Tammi Fisher for most of her adult life, and ever since Bill Clinton’s affair turned her away from the Democratic Party, she’s been a conservative Republican.

No one would mistake the outspoken former Kalispell mayor for a big-government liberal. But Fisher, 45, is aghast at what her party has become as Montana’s tradition of political independence gives way, as she sees it, to being just another Trump red state. “The extremists have stolen everything,” she said. “Our community has lost community,” 

Kevin Geer, who leads a local congregation of 4,000 at Canvas Church in Kalispell, said in an interview. He’s angry, too, at extremists he says are polluting religion with ugly politics: “They’ve hijacked the conversation.”

Questions: 

1. Is it reasonable to believe that, in general, the Republican Party and ex-president supporters are more intolerant and aggressive in their rhetoric and other behaviors than the rest of America's political spectrum?

2. Should people opposed to the ex-president refrain from expressing their opinions in public, e.g., displaying a gay pride flag, and instead just keep quiet to avoid provoking bad behavior from the radical right? Or, would keeping quiet make no difference and Montana's traditional independence would still be obliterated and replaced with hard core radical right partisanship? 

3. How much responsibility, if any, does the ex-president, the GOP and their enablers, e.g., Fox News, bear for fomenting the usually disinformed terror, rage and hate that now flows copiously from the radical right and most of the GOP's rank and file? Or, is the terror, rage and hate a falsehood and mostly or completely non-existent, with those bad feelings being grounded in facts, truths and sound reasoning instead of disinformation?  

4. Is it reasonable to label the current Republican Party as a whole as extremist, ultraconservative, radical right or fascist? Or is the GOP just doing conservative politics as usual?