Thanks to Junk Science for finding this tidbit, as Professor Brendan Nyhan admits the truth in the NY Times
For years, activists and scholars have contended that groups who reject the scientific consensus on climate change are employing tactics once used to create doubt about the dangers of smoking.
Now environmentalists are taking a page from tobacco opponents by suggesting oil companies misled investors and the public about the risks of climate change. The first step toward a legal inquiry came Wednesday evening when the New York attorney general subpoenaed records from Exxon Mobil.
While this tactic helped tobacco opponents win over regulators and the public, it may be a less effective approach to addressing political opposition to climate change — an issue on which both elites and the public are deeply divided.
All this division shows that it is a political issue. Make sure to read the rest, as we head to the last paragraph
The risk for environmentalists is that this legal strategy may play out differently in a polarized age. With the issue and Congress more divided, lawsuits and investigations could provoke further conflict between liberals who distrust oil companies and conservatives who are skeptical of interventions in the free market. Though investigating Exxon is a creative tactic, it may end up reinforcing polarization on climate change rather than removing it.
Here’s the thing: they aren’t environmentalists, most seem to care little about the damage they themselves do to the environment. They are hardcore leftists. And, this is simply a tactic to push their far left political policies.
There is a huge difference. With smoking, only 30% of the US smoked and the secondary smoking was clearly bad, if not from a firm health study, at least from the fact it was extremely unpleasant and dirty. With fossil fuels, everyone uses them and it seems that the warm religion uses them more than others. So, it will be hard to counter that fact. They do try to make demons out of the fuel industry, but people know that increased expenses on them will be increased prices on us. With Obama’s economy, I can’t think of many that can afford that.
1. Why do you slur Professor Nyhan as a “warmist”. He expressed no pro or con position in his article.
2. The author did not use your made-up quote “Just a Tactic”. What the author did say was “investigating Exxon is a creative tactic”.
3. You imply that there is something wrong with using a “tactic”. Do you even understand what “tactic” means? Here’s some help: 1: a device for accomplishing an end
So “warmist” is now a slur?
Thanks!
Just another excuse to push the climate change agenda and target enemies of the left. Also they can pick up some
finesdonations to support leftist campaigns.