explore fossil-think

1 files changed, 174 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/log.md b/log.md
index f4ef173..2fff1f2 100644
--- a/log.md
+++ b/log.md
@@ -4,6 +4,180 @@ title: Dissertation log
 author: Joe Carstairs
 ---
 
+## 2026-07-02
+
+### @{smoke-mirrors-hot-air}
+
+A 2007 report from the Union of Concerned Scientists arguing that ExxonMobil is
+using the same tactics as the tobacco industry to mislead the public about the
+scientific evidence relating to global warming.
+
+Their strategies include:
+
+- Manufacturing uncertainty
+- Information laundering
+- Promoting scientific spokespeople who deceive the public
+- Deflecting focus from climate action by calling for "sound science"
+- Exerting influence over the government
+
+### @{denial-deception}
+
+Fossil fuel companies realised early on that burning fossil fuels was causing
+global warming, and that if governments were to act in the interests of their
+citizens according to the knowledge of the scientific facts, their profits
+would suffer. Therefore, they set about minimising public knowledge of the
+scientific facts. At first, they denied that climate change was real, but this
+eventually became unsustainable. Then they switched to manufacturing
+uncertainty and doubt (MUD) by encouraging scientists under their employ to
+author papers which use dodgy statistical methods and cherry-picked, or
+fabricated, data to come to conclusions out of step with the truth of the
+reality of climate change, and publishing in-house journals in which to publish
+such papers.  Once these papers are published, the peer-review process ensured
+that they created controversy, increasing the perception that the science is
+uncertain. (Pretty unevidenced up to here.)
+
+The GCC was formed in 1989, and engaged in lobbying, attended COPs, put out
+adverts, and sent spokespeople to represent them in the news media. In so
+doing, they attacked the IPCC, made ad hominem attacks against scientists and
+environmentalists, and criticised climate models.
+
+In 1991, the Informed Council on the Environment, or ICE, was set up. It was
+a PR campaign set up by a consortium of US electric companies. Thanks to a leak
+to the New York Times, we know that it was a deliberate attempt to 'reposition
+global warming as theory (not fact).'
+
+In 1998, Exxon set up the Global Climate Science Team (GCST) and gave it an
+'Action Plan,' since leaked, aiming to create public uncertainty about climate
+science and to make people supporting Kyoto on the basis of scientific evidence
+appear 'out of touch with reality.'
+
+I only got as far as the section on Exxon, about a third of the way through.
+
+### @{brulle-2014}
+
+Brulle argues that the climate change counter-movement in the US is a subset of
+the conservative movement; that as a result, conservative think-tanks play a
+key role by creating ideas and funding movement organisations; and that fossil
+fuel companies have been playing an increasingly important role in funding
+conservative think-tanks, though they have also gotten much better at hiding
+their financial involvement through the Donors Trust/Donors Capital Fund,
+which, because they are a kind of legal entity called a 'donor foundation,'
+allow donors to legally tell them where to put their donated money without
+publicly disclosing their identity. Brulle makes heavy use of publicly
+available funding data and engages widely with the relevant literature.
+
+### @{sassan-2023}
+
+A study of four climate-related information campaigns, investigating their
+strategies, in order to understand how the climate change counter-movement
+has come to succeed in achieving political outcomes favourable to fossil fuel
+companies over the public interest, and how companies have come to play an
+influential role in American democratic discourse.
+
+Campaign activities:
+
+- Advertisements
+- Creating social media discussion fora
+- Astroturfing
+- Lobbying
+- Summits
+
+Rhetorical frames:
+
+- They appeal to jobs and the economy
+- They manufacture scientific controversy
+- They appeal to 'energy security,' presenting alternatives as dangerous
+- They portray their stance as most in line with American values
+- They say their stance is most in line with the everyman's interests
+
+### @{spampatti-2025}
+
+Misinformation research tends to aim for truth-discernment as the ultimate sign
+of success. But in the case of climate misinformation, this misses the mark.
+For one thing, some falsehoods are relatively benign, such as 'the world may
+warm by up to 20 deg C'. Further, some truths are relatively harmful, such as
+'the world today has warmed by 0.4 deg C'. What actually matters is people's
+behaviours, not the accuracy of their beliefs.
+
+### @{farrell-2019}
+
+Misinformation aims to obstruct the public from accepting the truth that
+climate change is real. Misinformation campaigns won when Trump withdrew from
+the Paris Agreement shoulder-to-shoulder with Myron Ebell, who is a 'climate
+science contrarian' and has received lots of fossil money. Misinformation
+campaigns also won when the EPA was given a cap of scientific papers they could
+consider when making decisions, largely because of the influence of Steve
+Milloy, who has a long history of working for misinformation campaigns for the
+tobacco and fossil fuel industries.
+
+The authors propose four strategies for fighting misinformation.
+
+First, there must be public inoculation campaigns against misinformation, by
+telling the public where misinformation comes from and why it can't be trusted.
+We know this is needed because just telling the public that there is a
+scientific consensus in favour of anthropogenic climate change and the
+necessity of climate action isn't persuasive, because people interpret that
+information through their cultural lenses informed by their political
+affiliation, religion, trust in science and other public institutions,
+geographical location, etc.
+
+Second, there must be stronger legal challenges against fossil fuel companies.
+This will be enabled by more research into the misinformation network's
+knowledge, internal decision-making, funding streams and uncovering deliberate
+harrassment campaigns against scientists.
+
+Third, there must be resistance against the misinformation network's efforts to
+attach their misinformation to political issues and thus make it in the
+interest of certain political actors to promote their misinformation. In
+particular, there should be more social science to understand the
+misinformation network's strategies (e.g.  hiring paid actors to stand as vox
+pop), investors should divest from fossil fuel companies, and there should
+exist targeted local campaigns, viz. media campaigns, inoculation campaigns,
+and legal activism campaigns.
+
+Fourth, if there were stronger financial transparency laws, much of the money
+which currently gets funnelled secretly into misinformation would not be so
+funnelled.
+
+This article seems to me to have a confused understanding of the issues,
+frequently say things that don't make sense, and often wants evidence.
+
+## 2026-07-01
+
+### @{brulle-2023}
+
+An historical survey of the activities of the Global Climate Coalition, a
+fossil fuel industry lobby group which folded in 2001.
+
+### @{doubt-is-our-product}
+
+A widely-quoted popular book documenting how various industries in the USA have
+created doubt, including by the production of science and public science
+communications, in order to protect their profits against the public interest.
+Michaels does not deal with the issue of global warming.
+
+### @{leah-2011}
+
+An article exploring corporate strategies for manufacturing scientific
+controversy, taking three case studies, of which one is global warming. She
+focuses on how fossil fuel companies exploit American norms of journalistic
+balance, freedom of thought, and public, democratic politics to make an equal
+space for climate sceptics alongside their dialectical opponents, creating an
+illusion that the scientific community as a whole is equally split. She has a
+brilliant response to one call in a newspaper's letters section for a
+'moratorium' on publishing letters about global warming that aren't by
+qualified scientists, pointing out that this falls perfectly into the
+rhetorical trap that has been laid for them, confirming for their audience the
+view planted by fossil interests that the mainstream scientific community is
+ruled by exclusive, oppressive group-think opposed to free thought and public
+debate.
+
+### @{hulac-jul-2016}
+
+A ClimateWire long-form journalism article about the links between the tobacco
+industry and the fossil fuel industry in their attempts to fight against
+inconvenient scientific evidence.
+
 ## 2026-06-12
 
 ### @{anthropocene-or-capitalocene}