By Russel Cook dinner
Enviro-activists who declare human-induced catastrophic anthropogenic international warming (CAGW) is going on, is dangerous, and ought to be stopped, additionally say proof to assist their declare is present in peer reviewed, acknowledged science journals. It’s their gold normal for validating the credibility of scholarly papers on the subject. They admonish anybody providing criticism exterior this method — if it’s not peer reviewed and printed in a science journal, it has no credibility and is probably going corrupted by doubtful exterior influences.
They might say that one other time period for peer reviewers is “truth checkers,” exterior specialists not related to the paper’s writer(s) who confirm whether or not there are errors within the paper previous to publication in a local weather science journal, on any space associated to the problem. Peer reviewed approval = no errors. CAGW skeptics (e.g. Patrick Michaels, 2011) might notice that “pal-review” taints the system; because it applies to the next, a query about that arises on the finish of this dialogue.
A paper authored by Emily Williams / Sydney Bartone / Emma Swanson / Leah C Stokes (Williams et al.) titled “The American electrical utility trade’s position in selling local weather denial, doubt, and delay” was printed on September 1, 2022 within the science journal Environmental Analysis Letters, supposedly adhering to this actual peer evaluate system. One of many people the authors cited of their paper later stated in a Sept 7 Atlantic article that this paper “is the primary peer-reviewed publication to survey the trade’s messaging particularly.”
I’ve devoted twelve years (70+ on-line articles / 345+ GelbspanFiles weblog posts) analyzing the accusation that fossil gasoline executives colluded with skeptic local weather scientists to unfold disinformation. If I had been permitted to fact-check evaluate this paper, I might have barred it for publication as a result of it comprises a minimal of six main errors basically pertaining to at least one particular part, specifically “3.1, Mapping the community,” and lead-in assertions for that part. Every quantity beneath is a hyperlink to screencaptures of the place the actual textual content is seen within the paper, to make discovering the quotes simpler of their full context. The small print following every numbered merchandise include screencaptures / weblinks detailing what the person issues are, together with bigger related issues.
I posit that two key errors, #4 and #5, collapse the complete premise of this paper.
#1. [within section 2.1 “Methods,’ in reference to a specific industry group in the subsequent section 3.1] “… we aimed to gather the identified denial and doubt paperwork utility organizations and their affiliated entrance teams authored … denial entrance teams related to the trade—the Data Council on the Atmosphere (ICE).”
The ICE public relations marketing campaign of mid- late-Could 1991 weren’t a secret entrance group, their newspaper adverts brazenly acknowledged that their funding got here from “a gaggle of electrical utility and coal firms.” As is quickly apparent from the precise newspaper adverts that had been printed in three totally different cities (as I confirmed right here, and right here), the ICE marketing campaign itself didn’t deny local weather change, it’s objective was to query explicit CAGW claims whereas providing further data from skeptic local weather scientists’ assessments to point out the general public that there was one other aspect to the problem.
#2. “… This set was retrieved from the Local weather Investigation Heart, Local weather Information, and an Power and Coverage Institute report (Anderson et al 2017).”
That is an instance of a “quotation cascade.” Authors of papers ought to cite the oldest attainable supply out there to supply all readers with the right full context of any given authoritative assertion, and may by no means inflate the standing of a single supply as being greater than it really is. On this case relating to the ICE marketing campaign and paperwork supposedly attributed to it, the Local weather Investigation Heart and Local weather Information are one-and-the-same single supply, operated by ex-Greenpeace / ex-Ozone Motion employee Kert Davies. And as I detailed at my April 11, 2020 GelbspanFiles weblog submit, “Anderson et al 2017” is Dave Anderson’s “Utilities Knew” report, during which he cites Kert Davies’ Local weather Information for the ICE docs. The clickable hyperlink in Anderson’s report is the similar hyperlink seen on this Williams et al. part 3.1’s Desk 2, Letter “f.” It goes to Kert Davies’ “1991 Data Council on the Atmosphere Local weather Denial Advert Marketing campaign” web page.
The declare that the ICE docs come from each Anderson and Local weather Information is disingenuous.
Davies’ “ICE docs” assortment sources from what I time period “Greenpeace USA neé Ozone Motion” — I identify that group as such as a result of Ozone Motion president John Passacantando merged his little group into Greenpeace USA, and Ozone Motion was the primary place, not Greenpeace, to provide actual lasting media traction to the alleged ‘leaked’ “ICE docs” assortment, in reference to Ross Gelbspan.
Basically, there may be just one supply for the so-called ICE docs assortment, Kert Davies / Ross Gelbspan circa 1996. Their “smoking gun memos” subset inside their assortment is actually nugatory as a result of it was an unsolicited proposal for the ICE marketing campaign by the Edison Electrical Institute that was rejected and by no means applied.
It doesn’t matter what motion is proposed to any entity, the mere existence of the proposal isn’t proof that the really useful motion ever occurred. Particularly if the proposal was rejected.
#3. “… the Data Council on the Atmosphere (ICE)”
Data Council FOR the Atmosphere. For, not on.
Of their Part 3.1, this modifications to “for.” That is not merely a careless tiny typo on the a part of the Williams et al. authors, it’s a tell-tale indicator of essentially the most outstanding authentic supply of the “ICE docs” assortment and the core multi-decade downside surrounding the accusation related to these docs. As famous in error #2 instantly above, Williams et al. cite each Dave Anderson and Kert Davies because the supply of the ICE docs. Anderson makes the identical “on”/”for”mistake in describing the official identify of the ICE marketing campaign. Kert Davies’ Local weather Information web page additionally makes that very same mistake, extra than as soon as. This “on”/”for”mistake traces again via Ross Gelbspan, (extra than as soon as) and as I additionally confirmed above in error #2, it goes all the way in which again to the Ozone Motion circa 1996 pages. In January 2022, Wikipedia itself labeled this fundamental state of affairs as an “Apparent error,” since somebody with editorial energy lastly seen their practically 18-year “Data Council on the Atmosphere” web page didn’t match the official brand of the ICE marketing campaign.
#4. “… ICE was a short-lived, pilot local weather denial marketing campaign, whose major objective was to ‘[r]eposition international warming as idea (not truth)’ via each print and radio ads (ICE 1991, p 7).”
Once more, ICE was not a local weather denial marketing campaign. However the huge error right here is to attribute the “reposition international warming” technique objective to them. This urged technique, together with the viewers focusing on suggestion of “older, much less educated males” and “youthful, decrease earnings girls” and various phrases to suit the ICE letters had been – once more – an unsolicited memo set proposed to the Western Fuels Affiliation that was rejected and by no means applied in any kind by any subsequent entity.
However discover that this Williams et al. paper locations the “R” for “reposition” in lowercase between brackets? Why? As a result of of their clickable reference (be certain that the “Present references” is chosen on the backside of their paper, which allows clicked hyperlinks to go straight to the citations) is for the “web page 7” at Kert Davies Local weather Information ICE adverts doc scans web page. What’s there at his scan? “Reposition international warming” with a capital “R.” What’s on his web page 6 instantly previous this? The rejected, unsolicited “Knowledgeable Residents for the Atmosphere” identify. This contradiction ought to have stopped the Williams et al. authors lifeless of their tracks, in order that they may ask probing questions on it. They didn’t tackle all of it. Neither does Dave Anderson at his 2017 “Utilities Knew” report. Anderson does, nonetheless, muddy the waters with his blatantly incorrect caption for the “Rooster Little” add by calling it “Knowledgeable Council on the Atmosphere,” thus indicating he’s an uninformed, unreliable supply for info. Kert Davies did in cursory style by parenthetically noting that ICE simply occurred to even be identified as “Knowledgeable Residents for the Atmosphere.” No, it by no means was. Plus, relating to the “Rooster Little” advert, observe the place Kert Davies crops the picture there. What does it say beneath that line? The previous Greenpeace USA’s Greenpeace Investigations pages (previous to these pages disappearing earlier this yr) confirmed it: “Knowledgeable Residents for the Atmosphere.” The similar picture that Dave Anderson incorrectly captioned. And once more, as I confirmed right here, and right here, that Rooster Little advert was by no means printed in any newspaper wherever.
#5. “… This marketing campaign was co-founded by EEI and the Western Fuels Affiliation (WFA)”
Anybody studying that assertion would interpret it to imply the Edison Electrical Institute and the Western Fuels Affiliation had been co-equal creators of the ICE marketing campaign. No totally different than Invoice Hewlett and Dave Packard of the Hewlett Packard Company. Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield of Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream. Concerning this Williams et al. paper, their assertion about EEI as a co-founder is contradicted by EEI’s personal assertion again in 1991, the place their spokesperson unequivocally acknowledged that EEI “is taking no half within the marketing campaign besides to supply survey outcomes.” That is corroborated within the second-to-last paragraph of a Could 12, 1991 Minneapolis Star Tribune article which particularly states, “… Neither the Nationwide Coal Affiliation nor the the Edison Electrical Institute has gotten concerned within the ICE marketing campaign…”
It’s irrational to imagine {that a} group which “co-founds” a big public relations marketing campaign would then haven’t any involvement in operating it a mere 4½ months later.
#6. “… With the collapse of ICE, WFA subsequent based GES …”
“Collapsed” is an unsubstantiated declare. Kert Davies Local weather Information / CIC web sites present no such proof for that declare. This Williams et al. paper’s different supply, the Dave Anderson “Utilities Knew” report, solely acknowledged in a imprecise and unsubstantiated method, “As soon as uncovered, the ICE marketing campaign had a comparatively transient shelf life …” The implication is that its publicity within the information media is what prompted its demise. Ross Gelbspan stated as a lot again within the early years of his “The Warmth is On-line” web site, nevertheless it seems that he couldn’t identify 2/3rds of the information media names accurately. Nevertheless, that is contradicted by an article at The Nation circa November 1996 written by David Helvarg during which he states, “The l.C.E. marketing campaign lasted six months, after which was terminated by the Western Fuels Affiliation…” with no indication that ICE’s finish was any type of public / information media-induced collapse.
There’s a further space of concern for error #2 above, specifically the place the authors acknowledged concerning the ICE paperwork they acquired, “… To one of the best of our information, for the 2 comparatively short-lived denial entrance teams related to the trade—the Data Council on the Atmosphere (ICE) … all publicly out there paperwork had been included within the evaluation.” The paperwork tally at Kert Davies’ Local weather Information web page, which these authors cite, is 27. To supply some latitude to the authors, the opposite Local weather Information ‘ICE docs’ information that they do not cite, “1991 Data Council on the Atmosphere Take a look at Denial Marketing campaign Plan and Survey” has 19 docs. Thus, 46 whole attributed to ICE. The “Greenpeace USA neé Ozone Motion” ‘ICE scans’ assortment — not publicly out there as of current months, whereas a downloaded PDF file copy model nonetheless is at my weblog — is 50 pages. Nevertheless, one web page is Ozone Motion’s cowl web page, and web page 6 is a replica of web page 2, pg 14 is a replica of pg 7, pg 15 is a replica of pg 8, pg 43 is a replica of pg 39, and pg 35 (as I detailed in my August 20, 2022 GelbspanFiles weblog submit) is an extraneous addition to the “Greenpeace USA neé Ozone Motion” scans that was written by any individual apparently not related in any respect with the ICE marketing campaign. So the “GP neé OA” precise tally is 44 paperwork. Kert Davies added an unpublished newspaper advert draft copy variant with the incorrect identify to his docs assortment, whereas his pg 20 is a replica of his web page 16, within the similar method because the “GP neé OA” pg 6/pg 2 state of affairs. Nevertheless, as David Helvarg stated in his Summer time 1996 publication, there have been 53 pages of ICE docs.
A minimal of 9 lacking pages. Did the Williams et al. authors know that, and did the knowledgeable reviewers of their paper know that, or categorical any curiosity on what the origins of this collective ‘leaked paperwork pile’ had been? This Williams et al. paper supplies an ‘out’ on what they may not concentrate on, with their line, “Since many local weather denial paperwork are inner, it’s probably that additional data exists on utilities’ involvement in local weather denial organizations that’s not public.” Sure, however the reverse additionally believable, that different paperwork is perhaps discovered which additional show that the EEI-sourced “reposition international warming” memos subset was unsolicited by ICE marketing campaign officers and by no means used. Since mainly no high administrator of the ICE marketing campaign really noticed this rejected memo set, it couldn’t due to this fact have been handed alongside to the following ‘Massive Coal / Oil’ / Electrical Utility CEO to serve as some type of template for ‘disinformation campaigns.’ A Western Fuels Affiliation workplace particular person advised me immediately that WFA’s copy went into the rubbish in the identical method that unused contribution materials from affiliation members for WFA’s annual stories had been thrown out.
All the above pertains to only one paragraph of this 12-page Williams et al. paper, and the couple of directly-related lead-in bits for that paragraph. If that many errors are in simply that small space of textual content, what number of extra errors are on this paper?
Who had been the “truth checkers” for this paper?
Even when there are not any different errors, these alone are sufficient to warrant a retraction request. Nevertheless, it was urged to me by a outstanding scientist {that a} retraction effort can be a waste of time, contemplating the obvious stranglehold the ERL editor-in-chief has over the content material of the journal, and contemplating his, properly, affiliation with local weather scientists who’ve hurled unsupportable – unsupportable! – accusations. Even when a retraction was achievable, it’d take a yr to perform.
What is perhaps simpler is for the Williams et al. authors to be made conscious of their embarrassing lack-of-research errors – by some means – to an efficient sufficient extent that they determine to voluntarily withdraw it, in order to attract much less consideration to the way in which peer evaluate can abysmally fail.
And possibly they may not wish to folks to see the one different doubtlessly crippling downside this paper appears to have: its funding, and the folks related with that funding.
Enviro activists have, for years, urged that even a touch of affiliation with funding from the fossil gasoline trade taints the credibility of anybody daring to query any side of the CAGW concern. If that’s honest recreation, then ought to it not apply equally properly in reverse? Discover that Williams et al. disclose on the backside of their paper that their “analysis was financially supported by the Rockefeller Household Fund.” Who is among the high directors for the Rockefeller Household Fund? Affiliate director Lisa Information. Who’s she married to? John Passacantando — they’re photographed collectively at Washington DC excessive society dinner occasions. Who’s John Passacantando? To repeat – he’s the person who headed Ozone Motion again within the late Nineties who gave the nugatory “reposition international warming” memos their first main, lasting, efficient, media traction as so-called “smoking gun proof” proving skeptic local weather scientists had been on the payroll of the vitality trade to undercut the knowledge of CAGW. If the accusation is that these scientists had been corrupted by trade cash as a result of they ‘don’t dispute the fabric they’re funded to disseminate,’ then why would it not not apply right here that Williams et al. function in an similar method, such that they jeopardize their funding in the event that they dare to deliver up all of the crippling faults surrounding John Passacantando and his beloved “reposition international warming” memos?
All these issues put the Williams et al. authors in a world of damage the place one of the best escape for them is to self-censor. In a while, if the following U.S. Congress chooses to research each the data-tampering a part of CAGW and the political accusations from sure enviro-activists, the choice these authors might need is to show state’s proof towards whoever it was who got here up with the concept for this paper.
