Fake Skepticism

[Arkady]

In my career, I've been in the board meetings of a number of large corporations, and in other meetings where C-level executives are mapping out strategies with billions of dollars at stake. One thing that has struck me, in those settings, is how liberal they sound on the issue of climate change.

Keep in mind, nearly all of those people are economic conservatives, who are hostile to regulation. But, when the topic turns to climate change, they put aside the usual right-wing propaganda and focus on the best available evidence. Although they might push fake skepticism in public, in order to try to head off regulations, behind closed doors they accept that the globe is going to continue to warm rapidly thanks to human greenhouse gas emissions. When plotting company strategy, they know they have to put their money where their mouths are, and that's no time for partisan politics. If the science tells them things are likely to get a lot warmer, they're going to make their moves based on that expectation (e.g., if they're building a facility near sea level, they'll pay extra for more flood-hardening than would be mathematically appropriate based on past flooding patterns, because they anticipate that sea levels will keep rising).

Anyway, I've never worked for a fossil fuel company, but apparently things are similar there. Even as companies like Exxon funded fake-skepticism propaganda, behind closed doors they had their own studies confirming what was going on.

http://www.salon.com/2017/08/25/i-was-an-exxon-funded-climate-scientist_partner/

....Exxon had its own scientists doing its own climate modeling as far back as the 1970s: science and modeling that was not only accurate, but that was being used to plan for the company’s future.​

When billions of dollars are on the line, a company like Exxon doesn't have the luxury of following a strategy that doesn't factor in anthropogenic climate change. So, the "skepticism" is reserved for the dummies in the public -- the corporations will make denialist claims and fund denialist propaganda, then once the doors to the meeting rooms are shut, they'll plot out moves that assume the scientists know what they're talking about.

 

[Alinvegas]

In my career, I've been in the board meetings of a number of large corporations, and in other meetings where C-level executives are mapping out strategies with billions of dollars at stake. One thing that has struck me, in those settings, is how liberal they sound on the issue of climate change. Keep in mind, nearly all of those people are economic conservatives, who are hostile to regulation. But, when the topic turns to climate change, they put aside the usual right-wing propaganda and focus on the best available evidence. Although they might push fake skepticism in public, in order to try to head off regulations, behind closed doors they accept that the globe is going to continue to warm rapidly thanks to human greenhouse gas emissions. When plotting company strategy, they know they have to put their money where their mouths are, and that's no time for partisan politics. If the science tells them things are likely to get a lot warmer, they're going to make their moves based on that expectation (e.g., if they're building a facility near sea level, they'll pay extra for more flood-hardening than would be mathematically appropriate based on past flooding patterns, because they anticipate that sea levels will keep rising).

Anyway, I've never worked for a fossil fuel company, but apparently things are similar there. Even as companies like Exxon funded fake-skepticism propaganda, behind closed doors they had their own studies confirming what was going on.

http://www.salon.com/2017/08/25/i-was-an-exxon-funded-climate-scientist_partner/

....Exxon had its own scientists doing its own climate modeling as far back as the 1970s: science and modeling that was not only accurate, but that was being used to plan for the company’s future.​

When billions of dollars are on the line, a company like Exxon doesn't have the luxury of following a strategy that doesn't factor in anthropogenic climate change. So, the "skepticism" is reserved for the dummies in the public -- the corporations will make denialist claims and fund denialist propaganda, then once the doors to the meeting rooms are shut, they'll plot out moves that assume the scientists know what they're talking about.

You wouldn't think they would criticize religion would you?

 

[RickWA]

In my career, I've been in the board meetings of a number of large corporations, and in other meetings where C-level executives are mapping out strategies with billions of dollars at stake. One thing that has struck me, in those settings, is how liberal they sound on the issue of climate change. Keep in mind, nearly all of those people are economic conservatives, who are hostile to regulation. But, when the topic turns to climate change, they put aside the usual right-wing propaganda and focus on the best available evidence. Although they might push fake skepticism in public, in order to try to head off regulations, behind closed doors they accept that the globe is going to continue to warm rapidly thanks to human greenhouse gas emissions. When plotting company strategy, they know they have to put their money where their mouths are, and that's no time for partisan politics. If the science tells them things are likely to get a lot warmer, they're going to make their moves based on that expectation (e.g., if they're building a facility near sea level, they'll pay extra for more flood-hardening than would be mathematically appropriate based on past flooding patterns, because they anticipate that sea levels will keep rising).

Anyway, I've never worked for a fossil fuel company, but apparently things are similar there. Even as companies like Exxon funded fake-skepticism propaganda, behind closed doors they had their own studies confirming what was going on.

http://www.salon.com/2017/08/25/i-was-an-exxon-funded-climate-scientist_partner/

....Exxon had its own scientists doing its own climate modeling as far back as the 1970s: science and modeling that was not only accurate, but that was being used to plan for the company’s future.​

When billions of dollars are on the line, a company like Exxon doesn't have the luxury of following a strategy that doesn't factor in anthropogenic climate change. So, the "skepticism" is reserved for the dummies in the public -- the corporations will make denialist claims and fund denialist propaganda, then once the doors to the meeting rooms are shut, they'll plot out moves that assume the scientists know what they're talking about.

My skepticism focuses primarily on the statist "solutions industry" rather than the reality of climate change. It has always been so. There is a vast array of issues - from gun violence to hate speech - wherein solutions are readily available so long as we don't mind surrendering liberties or trouncing on private property rights.

We could have a pristine earth awash in drones and slaves. I could have a mint condition auto if I didn't drive it. My eyeglasses wouldn't have a scratch on them if I kept them put away in their case.
No, most of my skepticism is reserved for those who seek to limit me at every turn...to fence me in. Gotta tell me what to do, how to do it, what to say and when. How I need to modify personal pronouns to suit some kook here or there. What car to drive. How to manage my business and which items to tax and cap.

Yes. A half-century of existence on this globe has taught me that there are many who simply cannot abide liberty. I am very skeptical of those control freaks. It's the SAME PEOPLE pushing all of it.

Odd, eh?

 

[UPNYA2]

In my career, I've been in the board meetings of a number of large corporations, and in other meetings where C-level executives are mapping out strategies with billions of dollars at stake. One thing that has struck me, in those settings, is how liberal they sound on the issue of climate change. Keep in mind, nearly all of those people are economic conservatives, who are hostile to regulation. But, when the topic turns to climate change, they put aside the usual right-wing propaganda and focus on the best available evidence. Although they might push fake skepticism in public, in order to try to head off regulations, behind closed doors they accept that the globe is going to continue to warm rapidly thanks to human greenhouse gas emissions. When plotting company strategy, they know they have to put their money where their mouths are, and that's no time for partisan politics. If the science tells them things are likely to get a lot warmer, they're going to make their moves based on that expectation (e.g., if they're building a facility near sea level, they'll pay extra for more flood-hardening than would be mathematically appropriate based on past flooding patterns, because they anticipate that sea levels will keep rising).

Anyway, I've never worked for a fossil fuel company, but apparently things are similar there. Even as companies like Exxon funded fake-skepticism propaganda, behind closed doors they had their own studies confirming what was going on.

http://www.salon.com/2017/08/25/i-was-an-exxon-funded-climate-scientist_partner/

....Exxon had its own scientists doing its own climate modeling as far back as the 1970s: science and modeling that was not only accurate, but that was being used to plan for the company’s future.​

When billions of dollars are on the line, a company like Exxon doesn't have the luxury of following a strategy that doesn't factor in anthropogenic climate change. So, the "skepticism" is reserved for the dummies in the public -- the corporations will make denialist claims and fund denialist propaganda, then once the doors to the meeting rooms are shut, they'll plot out moves that assume the scientists know what they're talking about.

If true, what benefits are there for companies like Exxon to, for decades, fund "fake-skepticism propaganda", if behind closed doors they had their own studies confirming what was going on?

 

[ObamacareForever]

If true, what benefits are there for companies like Exxon to, for decades, fund "fake-skepticism propaganda", if behind closed doors they had their own studies confirming what was going on?

Global warming is a boon for big oil companies. There are vast amounts of oil trapped in the Arctic. Heat up the arctic a few degrees then those reserves become much easier to access and they can continue gobs and gobs of money for another century.

 

[UPNYA2]

Global warming is a boon for big oil companies. There are vast amounts of oil trapped in the Arctic. Heat up the arctic a few degrees then those reserves become much easier to access and they can continue gobs and gobs of money for another century.

I don't believe that is it at all.

If these companies have "secret" information that they are using to plan on how to make and keep more monies in their futures it would make no sense to be spending gobs of their money for the past several decades to produce false date to the contrary of what they "know".

They are greedy, remember?

They could say nothing at all and just keep all of that money for profits or to be used later. I mean, it isn't as if they need false date to convince people to live their lives as they currently do so why waste it trying to do so anyway?

Plus, if what you say is actually true it isn't as if anyone is preventing it from happening so again, why waste the money? No one can tell us what we need to do to prevent us all from having to develop gills in the next couple of decades or so, right?

Therefore it is unreasonable to think huge companies would be willing to spend gobs of their money just to make everyone feel good about not stopping something no one can tell us how to stop.

 

[ObamacareForever]

I don't believe that is it at all.

If these companies have "secret" information that they are using to plan on how to make and keep more monies in their futures it would make no sense to be spending gobs of their money for the past several decades to produce false date to the contrary of what they "know".

They are greedy, remember?

They could say nothing at all and just keep all of that money for profits or to be used later. I mean, it isn't as if they need false date to convince people to live their lives as they currently do so why waste it trying to do so anyway?

Plus, if what you say is actually true it isn't as if anyone is preventing it from happening so again, why waste the money? No one can tell us what we need to do to prevent us all from having to develop gills in the next couple of decades or so, right?

Therefore it is unreasonable to think huge companies would be willing to spend gobs of their money just to make everyone feel good about not stopping something no one can tell us how to stop.

Because people are slowly moving away from fossil fuels. Demand for oil has past an inflection point, and climate science are contributing. China and Europe are developing sustainable energy sources. Individual states are far exceeding their renewable energy goals. Big Oil's false data is part of a marketing strategy to convince people they are not contributing to climate change and you can use their product without feeling guilty.

 

[Arkady]

You wouldn't think they would criticize religion would you?

The topic is climate change.

 

[Arkady]

My skepticism focuses primarily on the statist "solutions industry" rather than the reality of climate change. It has always been so. There is a vast array of issues - from gun violence to hate speech - wherein solutions are readily available so long as we don't mind surrendering liberties or trouncing on private property rights.

We could have a pristine earth awash in drones and slaves. I could have a mint condition auto if I didn't drive it. My eyeglasses wouldn't have a scratch on them if I kept them put away in their case.
No, most of my skepticism is reserved for those who seek to limit me at every turn...to fence me in. Gotta tell me what to do, how to do it, what to say and when. How I need to modify personal pronouns to suit some kook here or there. What car to drive. How to manage my business and which items to tax and cap.

Yes. A half-century of existence on this globe has taught me that there are many who simply cannot abide liberty. I am very skeptical of those control freaks. It's the SAME PEOPLE pushing all of it.

Odd, eh?

I'm skeptical of government control, too, which is why I favor cap-and-trade, which is the minimum government interference likely to address the issue. The idea is that we're better off making the "externalized cost" of carbon cognizable to the free market, and then standing back and letting competition find the most efficient path to staying within a sustainable global carbon budget. If, instead, I were drawn towards the climate change issue by way of a desire to minimize liberty, I would favor centralized state planning of solutions -- e.g., laws outlawing polluting behaviors and mandating certain paths towards carbon reduction (e.g., mandate no single-occupant cars on the road, etc.)

 

[Arkady]

If true, what benefits are there for companies like Exxon to, for decades, fund "fake-skepticism propaganda", if behind closed doors they had their own studies confirming what was going on?

There's a huge benefit. Exxon is the most powerful company in the world when it comes to the legacy energy source -- fossil fuels. They had a huge financial incentive to maximize consumption of that product for as long as possible. And that meant doing what they could to throw phony skepticism in the way of anything that would speed the move to new technologies, where they no longer have that incumbent advantage. But, in the meantime, they also had an incentive to know what was really going on, even if they didn't speak honestly about it, so that they could position their company better for the future that was going to show up sooner or later, no matter how good they were at stalling.

 

[Arkady]

I don't believe that is it at all.

If these companies have "secret" information that they are using to plan on how to make and keep more monies in their futures it would make no sense to be spending gobs of their money for the past several decades to produce false date to the contrary of what they "know".

They are greedy, remember?

They could say nothing at all and just keep all of that money for profits or to be used later. I mean, it isn't as if they need false date to convince people to live their lives as they currently do so why waste it trying to do so anyway?

Plus, if what you say is actually true it isn't as if anyone is preventing it from happening so again, why waste the money? No one can tell us what we need to do to prevent us all from having to develop gills in the next couple of decades or so, right?

Therefore it is unreasonable to think huge companies would be willing to spend gobs of their money just to make everyone feel good about not stopping something no one can tell us how to stop.

Picture it in a less controversial setting. For example, let's say you owned Tower Records back in the early 1990s. How would you feel about the future of digital music downloads? If you were rational, you'd be extremely apprehensive about it. Sure, there was the chance that you'd manage the transition well and wind up a leader in that new world, as well. But, you were already a leader in brick-and-mortar record sales, and your infrastructure, personnel, and know-how were all based around that. There was a good chance that somebody else with more digital know-how and less sunk cost in the old way of doing things, like Apple, would outrun you to the new paradigm. The same is true if you'd been the CEO of Blockbuster in the late 1990s. Seeing the future of streaming movies would have been terrifying, since you were the best in the world at playing the game by its old rules, and those rules were about to change dramatically. Maybe you'd learn the new ones well, too, but there was a good chance some nimble young competitor like Netflix would leave you in the dust.

That's the kind of analysis Exxon CEOs have been doing, as they look to a future dominated by wind and solar power. They hope that maybe they'll make that transition well and not end up like Tower Records and Blockbuster. And they're making moves to try to make that happen. But they're the best in the world at playing the energy game by its old rules, so of course they're not eager to see those rules change. And they're in a good position to delay that change, by way of funding climate change "skepticism." The longer they can prevent governments from moving, the more they can slow the growth of the new technologies, and the more years they can eke out at the top of the heap by way of continued global reliance on fossil fuels.

 

[UPNYA2]

Because people are slowly moving away from fossil fuels. Demand for oil has past an inflection point, and climate science are contributing. China and Europe are developing sustainable energy sources. Individual states are far exceeding their renewable energy goals. Big Oil's false data is part of a marketing strategy to convince people they are not contributing to climate change and you can use their product without feeling guilty.

I understand.

But, "Because people are slowly moving away from fossil fuels.", is why I am questioning the logic in them spending all of that money to convince people we can somehow prevent global warming. What advantage is there in heating up the arctic a few degrees so those reserves become much easier to access knowing people will be moved even further away from them by the time the earth warms enough these reserves become so much easier to obtain.

By then those reserves will not be worth "gobs and gobs of money for another century.", will they?

So I still wonder why a company so greed driven would basically spend money on "secret", "real" research, AND gobs and gobs of money, for decades, on "false data" when it would contribute nothing to their profits and actually cost them profits for all those decades.

 

[RickWA]

I'm skeptical of government control, too, which is why I favor cap-and-trade, which is the minimum government interference likely to address the issue. The idea is that we're better off making the "externalized cost" of carbon cognizable to the free market, and then standing back and letting competition find the most efficient path to staying within a sustainable global carbon budget. If, instead, I were drawn towards the climate change issue by way of a desire to minimize liberty, I would favor centralized state planning of solutions -- e.g., laws outlawing polluting behaviors and mandating certain paths towards carbon reduction (e.g., mandate no single-occupant cars on the road, etc.)

Baby steps. Again, the incrementalism of statist lefty is well known indeed. We all know what the intended end game is. It is what it always is.

So it goes with healthcare (ACA is a designed pry bar to enable single payer medicare for all via statism). Gun registries are mere primers, etc. Control freak, busybody foot-in-the-doorism...year over year over year.

Skepticism is not merely healthy, it's a requirement.

 

[UPNYA2]

Picture it in a less controversial setting. For example, let's say you owned Tower Records back in the early 1990s. How would you feel about the future of digital music downloads? If you were rational, you'd be extremely apprehensive about it. Sure, there was the chance that you'd manage the transition well and wind up a leader in that new world, as well. But, you were already a leader in brick-and-mortar record sales, and your infrastructure, personnel, and know-how were all based around that. There was a good chance that somebody else with more digital know-how and less sunk cost in the old way of doing things, like Apple, would outrun you to the new paradigm. The same is true if you'd been the CEO of Blockbuster in the late 1990s. Seeing the future of streaming movies would have been terrifying, since you were the best in the world at playing the game by its old rules, and those rules were about to change dramatically. Maybe you'd learn the new ones well, too, but there was a good chance some nimble young competitor like Netflix would leave you in the dust.

That's the kind of analysis Exxon CEOs have been doing, as they look to a future dominated by wind and solar power. They hope that maybe they'll make that transition well and not end up like Tower Records and Blockbuster. And they're making moves to try to make that happen. But they're the best in the world at playing the energy game by its old rules, so of course they're not eager to see those rules change. And they're in a good position to delay that change, by way of funding climate change "skepticism." The longer they can prevent governments from moving, the more they can slow the growth of the new technologies, and the more years they can eke out at the top of the heap by way of continued global reliance on fossil fuels.

I suppose that would make sense. At least it is something I would not feel would be worth trying to argue based on the limited knowledge I have on the matter.

Another subject, another time perhaps........ Later.

 

[Corruptbuddha]

Because people are slowly moving away from fossil fuels. Demand for oil has past an inflection point, and climate science are contributing. China and Europe are developing sustainable energy sources. Individual states are far exceeding their renewable energy goals. Big Oil's false data is part of a marketing strategy to convince people they are not contributing to climate change and you can use their product without feeling guilty.

Moving away from fossil fuel?

https://labs.timogrossenbacher.ch/worldoil/

Not really.

 

[EatTheRich]

I don't believe that is it at all.

If these companies have "secret" information that they are using to plan on how to make and keep more monies in their futures it would make no sense to be spending gobs of their money for the past several decades to produce false date to the contrary of what they "know".

They are greedy, remember?

They could say nothing at all and just keep all of that money for profits or to be used later. I mean, it isn't as if they need false date to convince people to live their lives as they currently do so why waste it trying to do so anyway?

Plus, if what you say is actually true it isn't as if anyone is preventing it from happening so again, why waste the money? No one can tell us what we need to do to prevent us all from having to develop gills in the next couple of decades or so, right?

Therefore it is unreasonable to think huge companies would be willing to spend gobs of their money just to make everyone feel good about not stopping something no one can tell us how to stop.

They have to discredit the scientists to stem regulation of their dangerous activities.

 

[Dawg]

The topic is climate change.

Negative, it's military Veterans, wait, you think only you are allowed to thread jack.

Actually topic was about YOU and no one gives a damn about what you CLAIM to have done or Gorebal Warming!

 

[Dawg]

Picture it in a less controversial setting. For example, let's say you owned Tower Records back in the early 1990s. How would you feel about the future of digital music downloads? If you were rational, you'd be extremely apprehensive about it. Sure, there was the chance that you'd manage the transition well and wind up a leader in that new world, as well. But, you were already a leader in brick-and-mortar record sales, and your infrastructure, personnel, and know-how were all based around that. There was a good chance that somebody else with more digital know-how and less sunk cost in the old way of doing things, like Apple, would outrun you to the new paradigm. The same is true if you'd been the CEO of Blockbuster in the late 1990s. Seeing the future of streaming movies would have been terrifying, since you were the best in the world at playing the game by its old rules, and those rules were about to change dramatically. Maybe you'd learn the new ones well, too, but there was a good chance some nimble young competitor like Netflix would leave you in the dust.

That's the kind of analysis Exxon CEOs have been doing, as they look to a future dominated by wind and solar power. They hope that maybe they'll make that transition well and not end up like Tower Records and Blockbuster. And they're making moves to try to make that happen. But they're the best in the world at playing the energy game by its old rules, so of course they're not eager to see those rules change. And they're in a good position to delay that change, by way of funding climate change "skepticism." The longer they can prevent governments from moving, the more they can slow the growth of the new technologies, and the more years they can eke out at the top of the heap by way of continued global reliance on fossil fuels.

Topic is climate change, damn, now you're jacking your own thread

 

[Raoul_Luke]

Well it's settled then, if those guys in the C Suites believe it, it must be true. Of course, it's true, after all, they, like you, make more than we do, so they must be smarter than us. Or at least better than us. Or whatever...

 

[EatTheRich]

Well it's settled then, if those guys in the C Suites believe it, it must be true. Of course, it's true, after all, they, like you, make more than we do, so they must be smarter than us. Or at least better than us. Or whatever...

No, the point is that their jobs depend on maximizing profits ... and they don't maximize profits by believing falsehoods ... only by repeating those falsehoods to the public.