# Big Oil are not Climate Change Denialists **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 3, 2014, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303 "2014-07-03T21:32:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2014, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/201 "2014-07-09T23:59:22Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > And you clearly seem to be unaware that there is the concept of a bad analogy. Of course, there are bad analogies. You simply have failed to provide any reason to believe that Ravenman’s was one. Your claim that they have different motivations, (although they do not) and your attempt to drag in other tactics that each have used fails to actually demonstrate that his analogy on one specific tactic was wrong. But then, you have to see it that way to maintain your position. > [@LonghornDave](#): > > There are people in this thread that we are currently participating that are making that exact claim. GIGObuster, for one, specifically says they are denialists. You are simply not paying attention if you think no one believes that Big Oil themselves are denialists. I never said that no one believed they were denialists. I simply pointed out that you did not initially provide evidence of that claim along with pointing out the bait-and-switch argument you used in the OP. > [@LonghornDave](#): > > You’re also completely misrepresenting what I just said. I didn’t say I’m not taking sides in this discussion. I clearly am doing that. I was clearly wondering what side you were implying I was on with your scare quotes “your side” reference. What side are you referring to with that? Your swallowing of the Big Oil lie that they are not working to undermine public recognition of AGW. > [@LonghornDave](#): > > I hand-waved it and tried to change the subject? Really? It seems like I’ve kept arguing back on it the entire time. Talk about getting things wrong. If Big Oil and Big Tobacco actions have been identical, please post the millions of pages of documented evidence of Big Oil’s cover-up? The analogy never claimed that all the tactics that each industry used was identical. The analogy pointed to one specific tactic in which both have engaged. Your desperate attempt to defend Big Oil relies on dragging in a lot of extraneous crap to deny that the analogy was valid. I doubt that you are open to actually see the point. As noted, you do not seem to have a grasp of how analogies work. > [@LonghornDave](#): > > I quoted your exact changed position. You included it in your response. I guess if you think the two quoted statements I provided are the same it goes a long way toward showing why you would think the Big Oil and Big Tobacco actions are identical. You’re just not very good at comparing things. You can’t see the obvious differences. I never said that they were identical and your insistence that I “changed” my position when I have just pointed out the distinct context in which I made two separate statements simply shows that you are fixated on trying to disprove a wholly accurate analogy by pretending that I have said the two industries are identical when I have never said that. I am done wasting my time trying to explain anything to you on this issue. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2014, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/202 "2014-07-10T00:25:34Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > There are people in this thread that we are currently participating that are making that exact claim. GIGObuster, for one, specifically says they are denialists. You are simply not paying attention if you think no one believes that Big Oil themselves are denialists. Once again this is by taking into account what they are doing in the background, if you think by only hand waiving one group will work for you when there are dozens you really have not thought this well. > [@LonghornDave](#): > > I did look at that paper. I’ve also commented back on it. You stated that I have said nothing back other than re-posting the same old feel good tepid one liners from the OP. That’s simply a lie. I didn’t respond back with that. I responded back by calling into question the accounting of the dollars. Specifically, I stated that they should not be counting dollars that were donated to groups such as Heritage Foundation American Enterprise Institute, etc. The largest dollars of that paper were to groups that have almost nothing at all to do with climate change. Further, as I will post in a follow up reply, some of those groups don’t even deny climate change themselves. And just like the oil companies they are learning how to fool many. > [@LonghornDave](#): > > I hand-waved it and tried to change the subject? Really? It seems like I’ve kept arguing back on it the entire time. Talk about getting things wrong. If Big Oil and Big Tobacco actions have been identical, please post the millions of pages of documented evidence of Big Oil’s cover-up? I can do that for Big Tobacco. Put up or shut up. I can show mountains and mountains of evidence of purposes lies by Big Tobacco. Show me where Big Oil has been sued by nearly every single state in the country? Show me where Big Oil has admitted wrong doing and entered into a major settlement regarding their decades of cover up and lies that you claim is identical to Big Tobacco’s. Oh, you can’t do those things. Perhaps one of the reasons is that it’s not a good analogy. This really shows that for all your claims of paying attention to what was discussed before in reality you ignored a lot, the research of Naomy Oreskes was linked many times in the past, and it shows how groups involved in the defense of the tobacco industry just changed their “research” focus and switched from denying the links to tobacco and cancer to denying the links to CO2 and other global warming gases without missing a beat. > **[Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M Conway | Book review](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/aug/08/merchants-of-doubt-oreskes-conway)** > > This exposé of the coterie of rightwing scientists hell-bent on destroying the cause of environmentalism is outstanding, says Robin McKie > [@](#): > > So why this hysterical vilification? Why these sudden denunciations of Carson? The answer – provided by Oreskes and Conway in this painstakingly assembled but nevertheless riveting piece of investigative reporting – is simple. The far right in America, in its quest to ensure the perpetuation of the free market, is now hell-bent on destroying the cause of environmentalism. > > According to this distorted view of life, environmentalists are watermelons – green on the outside, red on the inside – who want to impose regulation, “the slippery slope to socialism”, on the use of tobacco, ozone-destroying chemicals and greenhouse gases. “And in the demonising of Rachel Carson, free marketeers realised that if you could convince people that an example of successful government regulation wasn’t, in fact, successful – that it was actually a mistake – you could strengthen the argument against regulation in general,” state Oreskes and Conway. > > Hence the monstering of Carson’s reputation, an act of deliberate misinformation, say Oreskes and Conway, that has become the hallmark of a group of far-right institutions that are funded by businesses and conservative foundations and supported by a coterie of rightwing scientists who believe ecological threats are made up by lefty researchers as part of a grand plan to expand government control over our lives. These are the villains of Merchants of Doubt, and the same names pop up throughout its pages: scientists such as Fred Seitz, Robert Jastrow and Bill Nierenberg, along with the institutes through which they, and their kind, have lent their services to a range of rightwing, free-market foundations and institutions including the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the source of that anti-Carson diatribe that I quoted earlier. When not funded by the tobacco industry, many of these outfits often receive backing from fossil-fuel companies such as Exxon. > > In these campaigns, a common strategy is evident: discredit the science, spread confusion and promote doubt, tactics that were introduced in the 70s to combat plans to limit smoking – whose links to cancer were by then becoming unambiguous – and which have been refined and used in battles to combat acid rain, ozone-layer depletion and greenhouse gas emissions. > > Real science is dismissed as “junk” while misrepresentations are offered in its place. Thus cancer is triggered by many different causes, not just smoke, it was argued – even though the tobacco industry was, by this time, admitting in private that there was indeed a definite link between smoking and serious disease. Similarly acid rain was blamed not on its real cause, the by-products of burning fossil fuels, but on volcanic eruptions, which were also said to be the cause of the depletion of the ozone layer. This very long video was also posted before, but as it is clear that you are ignoring the mountains of evidence, the whole thing is then required viewing. [QUOTE] Uploaded on Dec 20, 2007 Polls show that between one-third and one-half of Americans still believe that there is “no solid” evidence of global warming, or that if warming is happening it can be attributed to natural variability. Others believe that scientists are still debating the point. Join scientist and renowned historian Naomi Oreskes as she describes her investigation into the reasons for such widespread mistrust and misunderstanding of scientific consensus and probes the history of organized campaigns designed to create public doubt and confusion about science. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2014, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/203 "2014-07-10T00:37:56Z")
And again, look at the before linked Frontline report, and find then the politicians that are being funded by the oil companies that are in favor of the oil tax. And to show that their CEOs and members are being discouraged in the open from financing denial groups and politicians that are against cap-n trade and an emission’s tax. You will find that for all your declarations the denier groups funded politicians that are now preventing any changes or fighting to undermine the fall back of the EPA imposing regulations as the current congress has failed to do anything, the fossil fuel companies are not unhappy with the current situation that they also helped made a reality with their tacit support of their “rogue” members. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2014, 10:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/204 "2014-07-10T10:00:27Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > So yes, there **is** a very good reason for oil companies to invest resources in widespread denial of climate change, even if they also have valid reasons to pay cheap and superficial lip service to acknowledging it. Perhaps I didn’t say it well, but I think if you re-read my post you’ll see this is the gist of it. As with any organization, large and small, one of Big Oil’s primary objectives is self-preservation. (Ditto my school board; ditto the IPCC; ditto the Federal Government). Oppositional forces will be probed for weakness, and any putative weaknesses presented as aggressively as possible. Marketing PR (lip service) to obfuscate and deflect will be used. Given our insatiable demand for energy, it’s my personal opinion that Big Oil is not particularly affected by the ACC alarmist positioning of it as the Evil Obfuscator. I personally think it’s a very naive view that Joe Public will limit his determination to live richly in support of a less ACC-affected world 50 years hence. And the 7 billion or so Joes hoping to join the other couple billion living richly (by 2050) ensure an insatiable demand for energy from all sources. The tragedy of the commons ensures that no one will sacrifice personally for so tentative a common good. If I am Big Oil, I pat Wolfpup and GIGObuster on the head, join them in their deep deep concern for a Great Cause, and I don’t worry too much about getting scapegoated. The addiction to energy is much stronger than is the will to stop sinning. Part of the fun of proselytizing for a Great Cause is calling out the Devil; the Devil himself can see that no prophesy of Doom is enough to incline Joe to reject his energy addiction. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2014, 10:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/205 "2014-07-10T10:22:15Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > There are already alternatives and thank you for ignoring how Al gore is\*\* not at all like you\*\* (In fact most of his investments now are for alt energy companies), it makes it easy to figure out people that have no ideas left. Like you. If I and the rest of the world consumed the total amount of energy that Mr Gore consumes, which alternate energy do you propose could meet that demand? Remember that the total energy budget of a given individual should reflect all the energy used to support a lifestyle. If I stay at the Ritz instead of camping, it’s the energy used to manufacture every item at the Ritz, and to replace it the moment it looks worn. If I travel first class, or by private plane, it’s the energy used over the efficiency of flying coach or taking a bus. If I get new golf clubs and play at a select country club, it’s the energy used over the public course. And so on… This idea you have that “alternate energy” means actually replacing existing sources is completely unsupported at a world level. What alternate energy does is add to the total energy grid, and the demand for total energy is quite literally insatiable until every Joe on this planet is living at the level of Mr Gore. If we came up with a totally green energy tomorrow that was competitive with Big Oil and could scale up immediately, what would happen is that X more people would live more richly because the total grid output was increased. More stuff. More air conditioning. What would NOT happen is that fossils would decrease. In limited and closed systems (I can think of Germany, e.g.) with large resources and an already comfortable standard, you might be able to make a limited index case (and we could argue how successful that is elsewhere). But Germans are already mostly living like Mr Gore–sort of. On an international level? Not a chance. China, India, South America–and perhaps even the african countries if they ever manage to join the modern world–are way too far behind Mr Gore and me. Surely the denial that an insatiable demand for energy from any and all sources prevents “alternative energy” from actually diminishing the demand for oil is Denialism on par with denialism about climate change itself. PS: I’m hopping on the alternate energy investment bandwagon too, wherever there’s a financial incentive for me to do so. But even if I did it for altruistic reasons, the fact that I pay indulgences does not mean I am not a Chief Sinner (which at my income level, I am, along with Mr Gore). ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2014, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/206 "2014-07-10T15:04:10Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > This ignores that subsidies for the poor can be in the mix. But the point still stands, if you are correct and what they claim in their websites is the beesnees, then it should be easy to show how groups like the Heritage or the Heartland Institute are supporting politicians that are in favor of the gas tax. My apologies for taking so long to respond to this. I was out of pocket all day Tuesday and couldn’t get to this yesterday. I initially had quite a bit of trouble finding anything. I looked at the following groups: American Enterprise Institute (single largest recipient in study at $86.7 million, 16%), Heritage Foundation (second largest recipient at $76.4 million, 14%), and Americans For Prosperity (eight largest recipient at $22.7 million, 4%). I spent most of my time looking at Heritage and AEI as they are the two largest and they are somewhat known to me. I spent a small amount of time looking at AFP as I knew they were somewhat controversial being largely a Koch backed group. Unfortunately, as far as I could tell, neither Heritage nor AEI make endorsements of any individual candidates. I tried to look at roundabout endorsements of instances where they did nothing but criticize and opposition candidate, but that doesn’t really seem to be what they do. What I found about AEI was interesting though. They have several contributing writers that back a carbon tax. This included most prominently Kevin Hassett (former economic advisor to Bush, McCain, and Romney) and Gregory Mankiw (former economic advisor to Bush and Romney). It also includes Kenneth Green, Steven Hayward, Samuel Thuernstrom, Lee Lane, and Nick Schulz. These guys write all the typical stuff you would expect to see coming from a conservative organization such as anti-Obamacare, anti-tax increases, etc. However, they are prominently proponents of carbon taxes. Kevin Hassett, AEI’s director of economic policy studies, has made numerous calls for a carbon tax, not solely as an alternative to cap and trade, but even after cap and trade talks died he continued to pursue the issue. This pursuit included the help in coordinating what was later termed an “AEI-hosted carbon tax cabal” on 7/11/12 with the goal of building bipartisan support for a carbon tax proposal. Also included was Kevin Curtis, a senior official with Al Gore’s climate campaign. Kevin Hassett has written numerous papers and editorials promoting a carbon tax. Gregory Mankiw also has supported a carbon tax not solely as an alternative to cap and trade but also after the proposal died. This included the endorsement of the 3/12/13 carbon tax proposal launched by Senators Waxman, Whitehouse, Blumenauer, and Schatz in an editorial he wrote in the [New York Times](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/business/a-carbon-tax-that-america-could-live-with.html?_r=0). These guys clearly promote numerous ideas that would be totally unrelated to climate change, primarily typical conservative economic policies, while also publicly supporting a carbon tax to combat climate change. An interesting item I found from Americans For Prosperity was their opposition to Senator Mary Landrieu, who is one of the strongest supporters of the oil and gas industry in the country. Landrieu supports the Keystone XL pipeline permitting, opposed the 2010 Gulf of Mexico drilling moratorium following Macando, calls for increased offshore drilling and permitting, opposes Obama’s attempts at repealing typical oil and gas deductions such as for intangible drilling costs and percentage depletion, supports baring the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases, opposed cap and trade, opposes carbon taxes, supports additional tax incentives for energy production, and a host of other clearly pro oil and gas proposals that would make an environmentalists head explode. It isn’t current election year stuff, she and her family have decades of history supporting the oil and gas industry. She is also currently the subject of $4 million in attack ads funded by Americans For Prosperity criticizing Landrieu’s support of Obamacare. Clearly AFP is also not the single issue group that Brulle makes them out to be. Again, what seems logical to me is to proportionately reduce down the dollars donated to the groups to reflect the percentage of their dollars they spend specifically on climate change denialist positions. It does not seem in any way logical to me to consider dollars spent on promoting Obamacare repeal or opposing increases to the minimum wage, for examples, as funding climate change denialism. Please explain to me why you believe otherwise, if you do. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2014, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/207 "2014-07-10T15:12:05Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > And analysts who studied banking practices knew and warned against the coming financial shitstom long before the bottom fell out of the mortgage market. I do believe it still happened, somehow. > > Ah, but \*steady \*price rises… It’s like that frog and frying pan cliché, innit ? > As for destroying demand, you said it yourself : petroleum products are needed, in the short term and the foreseeable future. They certainly will remain so for a good long while if renewable energy efforts keep getting hamstrung. Just yesterday, prominent Oil and Gas investment banking firm Tudor Pickering Holt made the following statement. [QUOTE=TPH] Oil thoughts – Crude oil (Brent $109/bbl and WTI $103/bbl) – Brent and WTI back to early June levels (pre-recent Iraq unrest) after spiking to $115 and $109/bbl respectively. Although currently prices are still salty, retreat from recent highs takes oil out of the demand danger zone for now. [/QUOTE] Guys that make their living analyzing oil and gas company stocks think it’s a good thing that oil prices retreated some as they feared demand destruction. That doesn’t mean in any way that they don’t like high prices, but they don’t like prices to get too high. > [@Kobal2](#): > > I’m counting fuck all. I merely observe that climate denying pseudo-science (and its publicity) keeps getting funded in spite of it being complete bunk, that politicians keep making climate denying statements and that climate denying legislation keeps getting passed. > > That all takes money. A heap of it. Again, who benefits from it, enough that they’d be moved to pour serious scratch into that crap ? 'Cause climate change denial isn’t like birth control or gay marriage. There’s precious little individual “morals and values” factors going on there. Okay, my apoligies as I thought you were also agreeing with others here in the Brulle paper which counts any dollar donated to groups like Heritage, AEI, AFP, and several others as funding climate change denialism. I’m not saying that funding of denialism doesn’t occur. I’m saying I’ve seen no evidence of any large dollar funding from Big Oil. I’m not saying it is impossible that they do fund it; I’ve just not seen the evidence. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2014, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/208 "2014-07-10T15:13:19Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I take it to mean they’re not stupid, but profit from lots of other people being stupid. Maybe so. I certainly wouldn’t disagree with that. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2014, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/209 "2014-07-10T15:25:06Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I never said that they were identical and your insistence that I “changed” my position when I have just pointed out the distinct context in which I made two separate statements simply shows that you are fixated on trying to disprove a wholly accurate analogy by pretending that I have said the two industries are identical when I have never said that. Just pathetic. You never said they were identical? Let me see. > [@tomndebb](#): > > Regardless of motivation, the actions of big oil and big tobacco have been identical. > [@tomndebb](#): > > I never said that no one believed they were denialists. Just pathetic. You never said people here weren’t calling them denialists? Is there a difference between denier and denialist? [QUOTE=tomndebb] They have been accused of funding deniers, not actually being deniers. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2014, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/210 "2014-07-10T16:07:10Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > If I and the rest of the world consumed the total amount of energy that Mr Gore consumes, which alternate energy do you propose could meet that demand? > > Remember that the total energy budget of a given individual should reflect all the energy used to support a lifestyle. If I stay at the Ritz instead of camping, it’s the energy used to manufacture every item at the Ritz, and to replace it the moment it looks worn. If I travel first class, or by private plane, it’s the energy used over the efficiency of flying coach or taking a bus. If I get new golf clubs and play at a select country club, it’s the energy used over the public course. And so on… And that shows that you only willfully ignore what was pointed before, the ones that want to follow a Ritzi life will have to pay more for it. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > PS: I’m hopping on the alternate energy investment bandwagon too, wherever there’s a financial incentive for me to do so. But even if I did it for altruistic reasons, the fact that I pay indulgences does not mean I am not a Chief Sinner (which at my income level, I am, along with Mr Gore). The fact that you are not doing now anything close to what Gore is doing shows that what you have been giving us is just more of the same: empty rhetoric. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2014, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/211 "2014-07-10T16:18:05Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Given our insatiable demand for energy, it’s my personal opinion that Big Oil is not particularly affected by the ACC alarmist positioning of it as the Evil Obfuscator. I personally think it’s a very naive view that Joe Public will limit his determination to live richly in support of a less ACC-affected world 50 years hence. And the 7 billion or so Joes hoping to join the other couple billion living richly (by 2050) ensure an insatiable demand for energy from all sources. > > The tragedy of the commons ensures that no one will sacrifice personally for so tentative a common good. And there you go again with the inference that taken care of the issue equals the end of progress or our standard of living **stop being the real alarmist** , it is clear that it does not matter if the costs of dealing with the issue are now calculated as being less than expected (Per the IPCC and other reports), the only progress it is required on this matter is to use those sources of energy in a way that do not release global warming gases into the atmosphere or just very little. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > If I am Big Oil, I pat Wolfpup and GIGObuster on the head, join them in their deep deep concern for a Great Cause, and I don’t worry too much about getting scapegoated. The addiction to energy is much stronger than is the will to stop sinning. Part of the fun of proselytizing for a Great Cause is calling out the Devil; the Devil himself can see that no prophesy of Doom is enough to incline Joe to reject his energy addiction. And there you go again with the empty and insulting thing of calling this a religion. As pointed many times before it is like the Godwin that shows that the one claiming it is just a proponent of pseudoscience and it has run out of ideas. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2014, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/212 "2014-07-10T16:30:09Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > My apologies for taking so long to respond to this. I was out of pocket all day Tuesday and couldn’t get to this yesterday. > > I initially had quite a bit of trouble finding anything. I looked at the following groups: American Enterprise Institute (single largest recipient in study at $86.7 million, 16%), Heritage Foundation (second largest recipient at $76.4 million, 14%), and Americans For Prosperity (eight largest recipient at $22.7 million, 4%). I spent most of my time looking at Heritage and AEI as they are the two largest and they are somewhat known to me. I spent a small amount of time looking at AFP as I knew they were somewhat controversial being largely a Koch backed group. > > Unfortunately, as far as I could tell, neither Heritage nor AEI make endorsements of any individual candidates. I tried to look at roundabout endorsements of instances where they did nothing but criticize and opposition candidate, but that doesn’t really seem to be what they do. > > What I found about AEI was interesting though. They have several contributing writers that back a carbon tax. This included most prominently Kevin Hassett (former economic advisor to Bush, McCain, and Romney) and Gregory Mankiw (former economic advisor to Bush and Romney). It also includes Kenneth Green, Steven Hayward, Samuel Thuernstrom, Lee Lane, and Nick Schulz. These guys write all the typical stuff you would expect to see coming from a conservative organization such as anti-Obamacare, anti-tax increases, etc. However, they are prominently proponents of carbon taxes. > > Kevin Hassett, AEI’s director of economic policy studies, has made numerous calls for a carbon tax, not solely as an alternative to cap and trade, but even after cap and trade talks died he continued to pursue the issue. This pursuit included the help in coordinating what was later termed an “AEI-hosted carbon tax cabal” on 7/11/12 with the goal of building bipartisan support for a carbon tax proposal. Also included was Kevin Curtis, a senior official with Al Gore’s climate campaign. Kevin Hassett has written numerous papers and editorials promoting a carbon tax. > > Gregory Mankiw also has supported a carbon tax not solely as an alternative to cap and trade but also after the proposal died. This included the endorsement of the 3/12/13 carbon tax proposal launched by Senators Waxman, Whitehouse, Blumenauer, and Schatz in an editorial he wrote in the [New York Times](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/business/a-carbon-tax-that-america-could-live-with.html?_r=0). > > These guys clearly promote numerous ideas that would be totally unrelated to climate change, primarily typical conservative economic policies, while also publicly supporting a carbon tax to combat climate change. > > An interesting item I found from Americans For Prosperity was their opposition to Senator Mary Landrieu, who is one of the strongest supporters of the oil and gas industry in the country. Landrieu supports the Keystone XL pipeline permitting, opposed the 2010 Gulf of Mexico drilling moratorium following Macando, calls for increased offshore drilling and permitting, opposes Obama’s attempts at repealing typical oil and gas deductions such as for intangible drilling costs and percentage depletion, supports baring the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases, opposed cap and trade, opposes carbon taxes, supports additional tax incentives for energy production, and a host of other clearly pro oil and gas proposals that would make an environmentalists head explode. It isn’t current election year stuff, she and her family have decades of history supporting the oil and gas industry. She is also currently the subject of $4 million in attack ads funded by Americans For Prosperity criticizing Landrieu’s support of Obamacare. Clearly AFP is also not the single issue group that Brulle makes them out to be. > > Again, what seems logical to me is to proportionately reduce down the dollars donated to the groups to reflect the percentage of their dollars they spend specifically on climate change denialist positions. It does not seem in any way logical to me to consider dollars spent on promoting Obamacare repeal or opposing increases to the minimum wage, for examples, as funding climate change denialism. Please explain to me why you believe otherwise, if you do. So, we are reduced to \*\*writers \*\*as the best example, not active politicians as it is the key nowadays. What Frontline showed is that many of those denier groups are usually not involved directly with campaigns, in the example they showed we had the case of Bob Ingus that was as conservative as you would want and then just because he supported cap-ntrade and taxes he was carpet bombed with ads to show how “loopy” he was for supporting that, Ingus lost. What you miss in the case of Landrieu if that any opponent that unseats her in a primary is bound to also fit in the tea-party continuum, he or she will be \*\*also \*\*a rabid opponent of any carbon tax. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2014, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/213 "2014-07-10T17:41:49Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > So, we are reduced to \*\*writers \*\*as the best example, not active politicians as it is the key nowadays. Like I said, as far as I can tell they don’t make endorsements of politicians. If you can show me where they are making endorsements, I would be glad to cross reference that with those politicians’ positions on climate change to see if any don’t . > [@GIGObuster](#): > > What Frontline showed is that many of those denier groups are usually not involved directly with campaigns, in the example they showed we had the case of Bob Ingus that was as conservative as you would want and then just because he supported cap-ntrade and taxes he was carpet bombed with ads to show how “loopy” he was for supporting that, Ingus lost. But AEI has had events on Climate Change directly supported by Ingus and vice versa. I’m not saying that an AFP, or others, does not spend money to support denialism; I’m saying they also spend their money on lots of other, totally unrelated causes. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > What you miss in the case of Landrieu if that any opponent that unseats her in a primary is bound to also fit in the tea-party continuum, he or she will be a rabid opponent of any carbon tax. But not any more of an opponent of carbon tax or general supporter of the energy industry than Landrieu; she’s probably the single biggest “friend” to the industry in the Senate. If AFP was a single issue (Climate Change) focused group, they wouldn’t be seeking to replace her. It shows their focus on all the other issues. Again, all I’m saying is that dollars spent on totally unrelated causes should not be used to inflate the numbers. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2014, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/214 "2014-07-10T18:25:10Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > Like I said, as far as I can tell they don’t make endorsements of politicians. If you can show me where they are making endorsements, I would be glad to cross reference that with those politicians’ positions on climate change to see if any don’t . in the Frontline report they interview the Prsident of Americans For Prosperity, they are not shy on accepting and getting credit for defeating Ingus. You can “tell it as far” because you do not check what was posted before. > [@LonghornDave](#): > > But AEI has had events on Climate Change directly supported by Ingus and vice versa. I’m not saying that an AFP, or others, does not spend money to support denialism; I’m saying they also spend their money on lots of other, totally unrelated causes. Duh, as pointed before there is still even today a lot of efforts from those same politicians to derail new tobacco regulations. In the end you can not deny that denialism is a part of the package. > [@LonghornDave](#): > > But not any more of an opponent of carbon tax or general supporter of the energy industry than Landrieu; she’s probably the single biggest “friend” to the industry in the Senate. If AFP was a single issue (Climate Change) focused group, they wouldn’t be seeking to replace her. It shows their focus on all the other issues. Ingus was also a dear friend of conservatives in all other issues, the difference in this case was that he accepted the science. > [@LonghornDave](#): > > Again, all I’m saying is that dollars spent on totally unrelated causes should not be used to inflate the numbers. I disagree, it is thanks to all those causes that doors are open to insert one of the biggest irresponsible positions seen in history. And you are describing one key issue, if it so unimportant then it should be very easy in the political arena to remove this issue from their platform and do the right thing. But I do not expect ponies, money talks and on this issue just words will not do, you need to show me a proactive stance in politics by those companies, CEOs and rich members regarding this carbon tax, otherwise you are the one with empty rhetoric. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2014, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/215 "2014-07-10T20:28:53Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > in the Frontline report they interview the Prsident of Americans For Prosperity, they are not shy on accepting and getting credit for defeating Ingus. > > You can “tell it as far” because you do not check what was posted before. Re-read my quote. I was specifically referring to Heritage and AEI. I agree that I was able to clearly find quasi political endorsement type activity (i.e. Landrieu) on AFP. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Duh, as pointed before there is still even today a lot of efforts from those same politicians to derail new tobacco regulations. In the end you can not deny that denialism is a part of the package. And as I hope I have made exceptionally clear on my several posts about it, I am not denying it and believe that a portion of the dollars should be considered commensurate with the amount actually expended toward those efforts. However, you also need to give some sort of thought into the type/degree of climate change denialism. A huge portion of any dollars that AFP is spending on denialism seems pretty blatantly out and out denialism. Can you really say the same about AEI? Individual editors may vary, but they’re basically saying they believe in man made climate change and are actively supporting a carbon tax. Seems crazy to consider those equivalent anti-climate change, but that is exactly what Brulle is doing. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Ingus was also a dear friend of conservatives in all other issues, the difference in this case was that he accepted the science. Right, so look at the stark difference with the Landrieu situation. This is key and shows that they are not single issue focused. With Ingus (who I agree is a very ugly black eye for anyone associated with it based on what I know), you presumably had AFP oppose him even though he is 90% in agreement with them and replace with someone that is 100% in agreement. With Landrieu, you have someone that is only 10% in agreement with them and are replacing with someone that is 100% in agreement. This makes perfect sense since they are not single issue focused; why would they not oppose her? If all they cared about was anti-climate change policy, they would have not cared enough to spend dollars opposing her since she would basically be their ideal candidate. I don’t think the NRA is going to spend dollars opposing the strongest gun rights proponent in the senate just because that person disagrees on minimum way policy. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > I disagree, it is thanks to all those causes that doors are open to insert one of the biggest irresponsible positions seen in history. And you are describing one key issue, if it so unimportant then it should be very easy in the political arena to remove this issue from their platform and do the right thing. Who said it was so unimportant to them? I’m just saying it is a small part of what they do, a small part of what they spend their money on, and a small part of what they raise their money on. That doesn’t mean I think it is a meaningless and easily replaceable belief. I think it’s perfectly fair to criticize them for it. I think they’re wrong. I just am not going to count money spent lobbying against the minimum wage increase as a dollar spent fighting against climate change activism. I’m also, questioning the inclusion of certain of their groups such as AEI, which don’t seem like climate change denialists to me at all. They’re the number one ranked recipient of supposed climate change denialist dollars and they, if anything, completely break ranks with other conservatives and support climate change activism. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > But I do not expect ponies, money talks and on this issue just words will not do, you need to show me a proactive stance in politics by those companies, CEOs and rich members regarding this carbon tax, otherwise you are the one with empty rhetoric. Well, Exxon is a supporter of the AEI who is attempting to build bipartisan support to enact a carbon tax. However, don’t take that from me to mean I believe they are a shining beacon of climate change activism. I’m just saying they are not the cartoonishly evil denialist boogie men they are sometimes made out to be. You clearly disagree (I think), but I think I’ve made my case. I’m happy to continue the discussion though on this and all sorts of other tangential aspects. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2014, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/216 "2014-07-10T20:32:52Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > I’m also, questioning the inclusion of certain of their groups such as AEI, which don’t seem like climate change denialists to me at all. They’re the number one ranked recipient of supposed climate change denialist dollars and they, if anything, completely break ranks with other conservatives and support climate change activism. > > Well, Exxon is a supporter of the AEI who is attempting to build bipartisan support to enact a carbon tax. However, don’t take that from me to mean I believe they are a shining beacon of climate change activism. I’m just saying they are not the cartoonishly evil denialist boogie men they are sometimes made out to be. You clearly disagree (I think), but I think I’ve made my case. I’m happy to continue the discussion though on this and all sorts of other tangential aspects. Good think that I was not referring to the AEI, they could had been deniers in the past, but I’m referring to the ones involved in the cites I made. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2014, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/217 "2014-07-10T20:46:20Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > Right, so look at the stark difference with the Landrieu situation. This is key and shows that they are not single issue focused. With Ingus (who I agree is a very ugly black eye for anyone associated with it based on what I know), you presumably had AFP oppose him even though he is 90% in agreement with them and replace with someone that is 100% in agreement. With Landrieu, you have someone that is only 10% in agreement with them and are replacing with someone that is 100% in agreement. This makes perfect sense since they are not single issue focused; why would they not oppose her? If all they cared about was anti-climate change policy, they would have not cared enough to spend dollars opposing her since she would basically be their ideal candidate. This still ignores that the one they are supporting is 100% in agreement, including the denial of human induced climate change. > [@LonghornDave](#): > > Who said it was so unimportant to them? I’m just saying it is a small part of what they do, a small part of what they spend their money on, and a small part of what they raise their money on. That doesn’t mean I think it is a meaningless and easily replaceable belief. I think it’s perfectly fair to criticize them for it. I think they’re wrong. I just am not going to count money spent lobbying against the minimum wage increase as a dollar spent fighting against climate change activism. I see the companies that are not doing anything to criticize in the open their CEOs or members that continue funding denialism as tacit supporters then, similarly the same goes for the ones that are not willing to dump the denial of climate science, until they do remove that “small” part of their efforts then one has to criticize them in toto, and looking at issues they push like limiting woman’s rights, workers rights and health access, it is not a really hard thing to do. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2014, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/218 "2014-07-10T20:53:40Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Good think that I was not referring to the AEI, they could had been deniers in the past, but I’m referring to the ones involved in the cites I made. What do you mean? AEI is the single largest recipient of funds in Brulle’s study. That’s one of your cites. You even quoted the dollar amount in his study. AEI is a known recipient of funds from Exxon. My entire argument is that you can’t consider the dollar amount in that study as accurate. I don’t at all mean this in a gotcha type of way, but it seems like you might be (at least partially) agreeing with me that there is at least some portion of overstatement in Brulle’s paper, right? That’s really all that I’m trying to get at. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2014, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/219 "2014-07-10T21:03:07Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > What do you mean? AEI is the single largest recipient of funds in Brulle’s study. That’s one of your cites. Not my cite, I do agree on most of it. But IIRC I pointed in the past at AEI as one that has changed and it is likely not needed to be used as relevant nowadays. > [@LonghornDave](#): > > You even quoted the dollar amount in his study. Nope. > [@LonghornDave](#): > > AEI is a known recipient of funds from Exxon. My entire argument is that you can’t consider the dollar amount in that study as accurate. And I never said I did, only that it was one data point to be considered as supporting what others had found regarding Heritage, Heartland, AFP and many others. > [@LonghornDave](#): > > I don’t at all mean this in a gotcha type of way, but it seems like you might be (at least partially) agreeing with me that there is at least some portion of overstatement in Brulle’s paper, right? That’s really all that I’m trying to get at. If it was, the gotcha backfired on you as you only showed all that you are not paying attention, it is very likely then that that lack of attention goes also when you look at evidence that does not fit your views. The sources I was relying on were mostly Frontline Oreskes and other blogs that investigated the funding of denialism. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2014, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/220 "2014-07-10T21:04:45Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > This still ignores that the one they are supporting is 100% in agreement, including the denial of human induced climate change. Right, but are they supporting them for the single issue reason of climate change or because of the totality of agreement on a host of issues? My contention is that it’s the host of issues. It would be nice to see an election of Landrieu versus Ingus and how they (AFP) would react because I think that would make this clear. My belief is that if the election was between Ingus and Landrieu, they would side with Ingus. What do you think? It’s obviously a hypothetical, and one that is very unlikely to play out in real life considering that there aren’t many Republicans like Ingus nor Democrats like Landrieu. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > I see the companies that are not doing anything to criticize in the open their CEOs or members that continue funding denialism as tacit supporters then, similarly the same goes for the ones that are not willing to dump the denial of climate science, until they do remove that “small” part of their efforts then one has to criticize them in toto, and looking at issues they push like limiting woman’s rights, workers rights and health access, it is not a really hard thing to do. Well, I think this part has too big a chance to delve off into a massive hijacking of the thread, so I’m going to stay out of it. I’m not interested in talking about women’s rights or anything like that in this thread. Regarding the first part of your statement, I think considering the high percentage of climate change denialists in this country and the lack of explicit specific call-outs by company’s regarding any denialists in their ranks, I think you may essentially be setting up a test where nearly every company above a minimal size is a tacit supporter of denialism. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303.md?page=12)