The Great Pit Naomi Oreskes in PBS Frontline’s Part 3 “The Power of Big Oil” Train Wreck – Did It Float With That?
From Gelbspan . files
predictable, Frontline’s Part 3 Program give viewers only half or less of the full story they are telling, which is why the whole show can be labeled “misinformation”, but the show has lost all its importance. center in Parts 1 and 2 of ‘fossil fuel industry corruption spreading misinformation‘denunciation corner. I’ll cover that weird change in markup at the end of this post. A much bigger problem overall now is the very strange “Naomi Oreskes Hole” that Frontline and Oreskes inexplicably dug for themselves. She can’t keep her mouth shut at the various items that are a gift that keeps on giving; bullets give a silver disk to potential congressional investigators and law firms that protect energy companies in global warming lawsuits.
I’m talking about”Trader of Doubt“Documentary star/book author/ Historians Naomi Oreskes, of course. The new wrinkle that emerges from this situation has to do with both the things the Frontline allows her to say, and her uncompromising, erroneous response to what she says. in the end did not say.
So what did she end up saying in Season 3, after being used as a trailer for just a few seconds in the intro in Season 1 and again in the same way in Season 2?
No. Sure nothing. She never appeared in the main show of Season 3 at all.
In a technical sense, it was false advertising – misinformation – from Frontline to imply she would appear on the show. She didn’t even show up in any kind of ‘extra’ video of additional material not seen in broadcasts.
The great irony to this situation has to do with her pretentiousness that Frontline has given her permission to say:
It is important to understand the past. You can’t understand where you are if you don’t know how did you get there.
It is of course implied that viewers would fully appreciate the ‘misinformation’ published by the fossil fuel industry today if they knew about its entire history. And who better to tell the Frontline audience about it than “Climate information expert” Naomi Oreskes.
It’s all exactly the opposite. It To be It is important to understand the past because the public will not understand where they are with accusations now if they don’t know how the accusation got here today through its core issuers. Start digging into the history of how these accusers were involved, and you find no neat answers, you end up finding more and more thorny issues that may suggest accusations. sin is nothing more than libel/slander.
Starts with her reaction arrive not appear on the show for a long time during Season 3. It was in response to some guys tagging her and her “Merchants of Doubt” co-writer with praise for the way the media finally caught up with their workin a retweet by some posts by other accounts about the April 19 broadcast of Frontline’s Part 1:
Better late than never…I guess. (FWIW we introduced this story to Frontline in 2012. They told us they only made stories that were sourced from them.)
Notice the lack of interest there. But for serious, objective, unbiased investigators, the immediate question is: What story?” / “who we“? / “why specifically in 2012? ”
By 2012, Oreskes was two stories, not just one. About her much more famous “Doubtful Trader” story, as opposed to the hype about it expose the cynical environment of “for-hire liars”, and contrary to Oreskes’ own hype about it as Revealing the lobbying of the fossil fuel industry leading to suspicion undermining the ‘scientific consensus’, the book is described as exposed “a close group of senior scientists.. with deep connections in politics and industry“But it is believed that nothing harms skeptical climate scientists more than conservative / politics / ideology motivating engines. Meanwhile, she takes other damage-appear the “evidence” accusation was much more obscure to her back then contribute book chapters and directly related Powerpoint presentation Related to invalid “Repositioning global warming is more theory than reality” ‘leak memo’ have long wrong attribution for the Western Fuels Association. The problem with her second story is that it’s just her, so there’s no “we” involved there.
Or is it?
She specifically said the “we” mystery made up the story, whatever it was, in 2012. Not 2013, not 2011. Everyone else said essentially the same thing at the same time. a day? Kert Davies, who was quite prominent in Part 1 of Frontline and Part 2.
Did he give any specifics about what that ‘movie’ might be about? Yes, he did, at his Climate Investigation Center”Viewer’s Guide“For Frontline’s 3-part series… Part 3 was completely ruled out:
… Clip is shown from this video produced by the Western Fuel Association. The story of the role of the coal industry, and the role of power companies and associations maybe another whole front line
There’s that name again, the Western Fuels Association. I have said it beforeI’ll say it again: why these core accusers keep coming back old friend supposedly Western Fuels “repositioning global warming” is because that’s really the absolute most likely “evidence” they’ve ever had to prove that ‘Big Coal & Oil’ colluded with skeptical climate scientists ‘shill experts’ to spread misinformation. The second best is the person they love but no less invalid Remember “victory will be achieved”.
Meanwhile, Frontline’s Season 3 program has strangely lost all of its focus in Seasons 1 and 2, for whatever reason. Instead of offering any evidence that industry misinformation has undercut the ‘stable science’ of man-made global warming catastrophes, it turns to what the field looks like. attacks against former Obama Administration Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz through vague insinuations that he was involved in the illegal lobbying of natural gas production, and attacks against President Obama himself (remember for environmentalists: you don’t bite the hand that feeds you).
In addition, here is my highlight list of Frontline’s persistent misinformation:
- 16 additional mentions of the term “climate change” in this Section 3 overall for the all-inclusive Part 1 to Part 3 online transcript. The real name of the matter is still global warming (inconvenient contradict the lack of themhence its real name is downvoted).
- “Hurricane Katrina… part of an emerging trend of extreme weather events“- Hurricane Katrina in 2005 at the head of a hurricane drought of Cat 3 or larger storms lasted for the next twelve years.
- Methane is much more harmful than CO2 – not a single word is said to Frontline viewers about other Greenhouse gas: water vapor. Meanwhile, the statement about the harmful effects of methane disputed.
- “Constraints [Paris Accords] International Treaty”- as PBS’s own NewsHour program stated in April 2016, the Paris Agreement to be are notconstraintand of course they are not a treaty ratified by the Senate as required by the Constitution.
- “REPLY. RO KHANNA, D-California: We Won’t Solve the Climate Crisis Unless We Solve the Misinformation Crisis. “- Technically, his first piece of information is said to be disinformation because his faction doesn’t tell the public anything about the scientific assessments from skeptical climate scientists. , and like I pointed out in my dissection in season 1 of the show Frontline, he shows the hallmarks of psychological projection in his second season. He makes accusations that opponents misinform the public, however, he and the House Oversight Committee of which he is a top member are ostensibly disrupting disinformation. scientific bias and political disinformation about corrupt industry executives colluding with climate experts ‘shill’. Yes, there really does appear to be a widespread disinformation crisis, but it’s not coming from a large number of people who are labeled antiscientific, racist, repeat activism. ‘Russian-speaking perspective’.
- “TONY INGRAFFEA:…What climate change means to me looking into my grandchildren’s eyes and wondering what the hell they will pay.“- That is also believed to be misinformation. While the speaker may have had basic freedom of expression to express his or her opinion, Frontline abdicates its journalistic responsibility to point out that the speaker’s grandparents, circa early 20th century, You may have wondered what kind of future? of them you may be dealing with cataclysmic weather events occurring around that time – Hurricane / heat / heat and snow at the same time / Glacier disappears / devastating forest fire / storm of the epic ratio / terrible flood / tornado and more tornado of epics multi-state ratio / and more storms…… you get the picture now. Imagine what your great-grandparents must think about the future climate when faced with … .. is fine …
Take all those headlines and more from the 100-120 years ago days of no SUVs and a much smaller number of huge and variable coal/oil/natural gas power plants. they made headlines 1-10 years ago. friend and your SUV because of inclement weather, and you see a serious problem with what former Greenpeace USA Ozone Action Director John Passacantando said in Season 1 as an inadvertent display of psychological projection. pure, just an arrow the size of Texas like where the real misinformation in this regard seems to be:
You want to assume that it is meritocracy. A good argument will prevail and it will replace a bad argument. But what the geniuses of PR firms working for these big fossil fuel companies know is that the truth has nothing to do with who wins the argument. If you say something enough times, people will start believing it.
Sound Acquainted? Replace the “geniuses of PR firms who work for these big fossil fuel companies“With ‘activists relentlessly accusing climate scientists of being skeptical of corruption in the industry’ and you can have a much more accurate picture of the current situation.
If the Frontline program were a factual investigative news outlet instead of an explicit propaganda tool for the stories of environmental activists who have never been questioned, they could redirect the focus 180° against against her and other activists, to find out exactly why accusing them of breaking stories under even minimal scrutiny.
Related
