Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The delicious irony of a non-US major oil-related media organization portraying US and European oil companies as the baddies in the climate debate.
“In 1988 the United Nations founded the IPCC, in which scientists around the world approved James Hansen.”
Jerry Taylor (former CATO Vice President): “Denying the climate depends entirely on denying the underlying science.”
Marc Morano: “If you look at the satellite data, the world has actually cooled down since 1988.
Marc Morano: “I believe in a television or debate scenario, you get the other person to defend their stupid comments.”
Jerry Taylor: “A lot of people who don’t know what to think about climate change are told by people like me that it’s a relative non-event, that it’s the same kind of wolf that cries that the environmental movement has always said did unthinkable, first we were told that there was a population bomb that would wipe out humanity and that bomb never went off, then we were told that we would run out of fossil fuels and agricultural commodities, we would all starve, and that never happened, and this is just the latest iteration of the usual environmentalist story that if we continued to tread the capitalist roads of laissez faire we would blow up the planet and destroy humanity. ” [Are you sure you are no longer on our side Jerry? :-)]
Myron Ebel: “It is clear that the earth is going green, and that is a bad thing?”
Myron Ebel: “Global warming as a political project was initiated in Sweden in the 1980s. They needed a reason to raise tax revenue. I think you know that the welfare state in Denmark needs money and over time it needs more money. “
About 11 minutes later, Naomi Oreskes complains about how everyone is trying to reach her, followed by complaints about a Shell Oil movie that says fossil fuels are essential, and complaints that BP, Shell, and Exxon have funds for research of green provide energy. Oreskes reappears in the film at random intervals, so it’s pretty hard to avoid seeing her.
The movie has a lot of conspiracy ideas in it, Exxon does the world type stuff. Pins on boards with string. Tobacco conspiracy nonsense at 34 minutes. Ed Garvey, who worked for Exxon in the 1980s, discussed after 38 minutes how Exxon’s management disapproved of his research.
Naomi Oreskes suggests that scientists funded by oil companies are unreliable, but Ed Garvey used to work for Exxon and is now a climate alarmist. Perhaps the only way to be unreliable is to disagree with Naomi Oreskes?
It ignores the idea that someone might disagree with Hansen and Oreskes’ position on climate change because they came to different conclusions based on the evidence available.
Al Jazeera also forgot to mention that Naomi Oreskes once called James Hansen a denier because Hansen believes nuclear energy will be an integral part of the future zero-carbon energy mix. Oreskes apparently believed that Hansen was denying the promise of renewable energies.
When watching the movie, it is easy to give the impression that Naomi Oreskes and James Hansen are in agreement on anything that they clearly don’t.
And of course there’s the delicious irony that film producer Al Jazeera owes its existence and much of its funding to the great Qatari oil royal family, despite claiming editorial independence. Maybe a bit like the BBC.
Al Jazeera is not immune to allegations of conflict of interest. Al Jazeera also funded Matt Damon’s anti-US fracking film in 2012.
A person with a really suspicious mind might wonder if someone in Qatar wants to shut the US and Europe out of the oil and gas game and is trying to stir up political opposition to oil and gas exploration in the US and Europe. But of course that would only be speculation.
If Al Jazeera expects their video to move the needle in the climate debate, I think they will be in great disappointment.