{"id":220820,"date":"2022-09-27T10:02:11","date_gmt":"2022-09-27T08:02:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=220820"},"modified":"2022-09-27T10:02:28","modified_gmt":"2022-09-27T08:02:28","slug":"peer-reviewed-science-journal-report-electric-utility-industrys-role-in-promoting-climate-denial-doubt-and-delay","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=220820","title":{"rendered":"Peer Reviewed Science Journal Report: \u2018Electric Utility Industry\u2019s Role in Promoting Climate Denial, Doubt, And Delay"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Enviro-activists who claim human-induced catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) is happening, is harmful, and should be stopped, also say evidence to support their claim is found in peer reviewed, recognized science journals. It\u2019s their gold standard for validating the credibility of scholarly papers on the topic. They admonish anyone offering criticism outside this system<\/a> \u2014 if it is not peer reviewed and published in a science journal, it has no credibility<\/a> and is likely corrupted by dubious outside influences<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They would say that another term for peer reviewers is \u201cfact checkers,\u201d outside experts not associated with the paper\u2019s author(s) who ascertain whether there are errors in the paper prior to publication in a climate science journal, on any area related to the issue. Peer reviewed approval = no errors. CAGW skeptics (e.g. Patrick Michaels, 2011<\/a>) may note that \u201cpal-review\u201d taints the system; as it applies to the following, a question about that arises at the end of this discussion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A paper authored by Emily Williams<\/a> \/ Sydney Bartone \/ Emma Swanson \/ Leah C Stokes (Williams et al.) titled \u201cThe American electric utility industry\u2019s role in promoting climate denial, doubt, and delay<\/a>\u201d was published on September 1, 2022 in the science journal Environmental Research Letters<\/em>, supposedly adhering to this exact peer review system. One of the individuals the authors cited in their paper later said in a Sept 7 Atlantic article <\/a>that this paper \u201cis the first peer-reviewed publication to survey the industry\u2019s messaging specifically<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I\u2019ve devoted twelve years (70+ online articles<\/a> \/ 345+ GelbspanFiles<\/a> blog posts) examining the accusation that fossil fuel executives colluded with skeptic climate scientists to spread disinformation. If I had <\/mark>been permitted to fact-check review this paper, I would have barred it for publication because it contains a minimum of six major errors essentially pertaining to one specific section, namely \u201c3.1, Mapping the network,\u201d and lead-in assertions for that section. Each number below is a hyperlink to screencaptures of where the particular text is seen in the paper, to make finding the quotes easier in their full context. The details following each numbered item contain screencaptures \/ weblinks detailing what the individual problems are, along with larger associated problems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I posit that two key errors, #4 and #5, collapse the entire premise of this paper.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

#1.<\/a> [within section 2.1 \u201cMethods,\u2019 in reference to a specific industry group in the subsequent section 3.1] \u201c\u2026 we aimed to collect the known <\/em>denial<\/strong> and doubt documents utility organizations and their affiliated front groups authored \u2026 <\/em>denial front groups<\/strong> associated with the industry\u2014the Information Council on<\/mark> the Environment (ICE)<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The ICE public relations campaign of mid- late-May 1991 were not a secret front group, their newspaper ads openly stated that their funding came from \u201ca group of electric utility and coal companies<\/a>.\u201d As is readily obvious from the actual newspaper ads that were published in three different cities (as I showed here<\/a>, and here<\/a>), the ICE campaign itself did not deny climate change, it\u2019s goal was to question particular CAGW claims while offering additional information from skeptic climate scientists\u2019 assessments to show the public<\/a> that there was another side to the issue<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

#2.<\/a> \u201c\u2026 This set was retrieved from the Climate Investigation Center, Climate Files, and an Energy and Policy Institute report (Anderson et al 2017)<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is an example of a \u201ccitation cascade.\u201d Authors of papers should cite the oldest possible source available to provide all readers with the proper full context of any given authoritative statement, and should never inflate the status of a single source as being bigger than it actually is. In this case regarding the ICE campaign and documents supposedly attributed to it, the Climate Investigation Center and Climate Files are one-and-the-same single source<\/a>, operated by ex-Greenpeace \/ ex-Ozone Action worker<\/a> Kert Davies. And as I detailed at my April 11, 2020 GelbspanFiles blog post<\/a>, \u201cAnderson et al 2017\u201d is Dave Anderson\u2019s \u201cUtilities Knew<\/a>\u201d report, in which he cites Kert Davies\u2019 Climate Files<\/a> for the ICE docs. The clickable link in Anderson\u2019s report is the identical link seen in this Williams et al. section 3.1\u2019s Table 2, Letter \u201cf.\u201d<\/a> It goes to Kert Davies\u2019 \u201c1991 Information Council on the Environment Climate Denial Ad Campaign<\/a>\u201d page.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The claim that the ICE docs come from both Anderson and Climate Files is disingenuous.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Davies\u2019 \u201cICE docs\u201d collection sources from what I term \u201cGreenpeace USA ne\u00e9 Ozone Action\u201d<\/a> \u2014 I name that group as such because Ozone Action president John Passacantando merged his little group into Greenpeace USA<\/a>, and Ozone Action was the first place, not Greenpeace, to give real lasting media traction to the alleged \u2018leaked\u2019 \u201cICE docs\u201d collection, in connection with Ross Gelbspan<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fundamentally, there is only one source<\/strong> for the so-called ICE docs collection, Kert Davies \/ Ross Gelbspan circa 1996. Their \u201csmoking gun memos\u201d subset within their collection is literally worthless because it was an unsolicited proposal<\/a> for the ICE campaign by the Edison Electric Institute that was rejected and never implemented.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

No matter what action is proposed<\/em> to any entity, the mere existence of the proposal is not proof<\/a> that the recommended action ever took place. Especially if the proposal was rejected.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

#3.<\/a> \u201c\u2026 the Information Council <\/em>on<\/mark><\/strong> the Environment (ICE)<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Information Council FOR <\/mark><\/strong>the Environment. For<\/a>, not on<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In their Section 3.1, this changes to \u201cfor.\u201d<\/a> This is not<\/em> simply a careless tiny typo on the part of the Williams et al. authors, it is a tell-tale indicator of the most prominent original source of the \u201cICE docs\u201d collection and the core multi-decade problem surrounding the accusation associated with those docs. As noted in error #2 immediately above, Williams et al. cite both Dave Anderson and Kert Davies as the source of the ICE docs. Anderson makes the same \u201con\u201d\/\u201dfor\u201dmistake<\/a> in describing the official name of the ICE campaign. Kert Davies\u2019 Climate Files page also makes that same mistake<\/a>, more than once<\/a>. This \u201con\u201d\/\u201dfor\u201dmistake traces back through Ross Gelbspan<\/a>, (more than once<\/a>) and as I also showed above in error #2, it goes all the way back to the Ozone Action circa 1996 pages<\/a>. In January 2022, Wikipedia itself labeled this basic situation as an \u201cObvious error,\u201d<\/a> since someone with editorial power finally noticed their nearly 18-year<\/a> \u201cInformation Council <\/mark>on<\/strong> <\/mark>the Environment\u201d page did not match<\/a> the official logo of the ICE campaign.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

#4.<\/a> \u201c\u2026 ICE was a short-lived, pilot climate <\/em>denial<\/strong> campaign, whose primary goal was to \u2018[r]eposition global warming as theory (not fact)<\/mark>\u2019 through both print and radio advertisements (ICE 1991, p 7)<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Again, ICE was not a climate denial campaign. But the massive error here is to attribute the \u201creposition global warming\u201d strategy goal to them. This suggested strategy, along with the audience targeting suggestion<\/a> of \u201colder, less educated males\u201d and \u201cyounger, lower income women\u201d and alternative words<\/a> to fit the ICE letters were \u2013 again \u2013 an unsolicited memo set proposed to the Western Fuels Association that was rejected and never implemented<\/em> in any form by any subsequent entity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But notice that this Williams et al. paper places the \u201cR\u201d for \u201creposition\u201d in lowercase between brackets? Why? Because in their clickable reference (make sure the \u201cShow references\u201d is selected<\/a> at the bottom of their paper, which enables clicked links to go straight to the citations) is for the \u201cpage 7\u201d<\/a> at Kert Davies Climate Files ICE ads document scans page<\/a>. What\u2019s there at his scan? \u201cReposition global warming\u201d with a capital \u201cR.\u201d What\u2019s on his page 6<\/strong> immediately preceding this? The rejected, unsolicited<\/a> \u201cInformed Citizens<\/mark> <\/mark>for the Environment\u201d name. This contradiction should have stopped the Williams et al. authors dead in their tracks, so that they could ask probing questions about it. They did not address it all. Neither does Dave Anderson at his 2017 \u201cUtilities Knew\u201d report. Anderson does, however, muddy the waters with his blatantly wrong caption<\/a> for the \u201cChicken Little\u201d add by calling it \u201cInformed Council on <\/mark>the Environment,\u201d thus indicating he is an uninformed, unreliable source for facts. Kert Davies did in cursory fashion by parenthetically noting that ICE just happened to also be known<\/a> as \u201cInformed Citizens for the Environment.\u201d No, it never was. Plus, regarding the \u201cChicken Little\u201d ad, observe where Kert Davies crops the image there. What does it say below that line? The old Greenpeace USA\u2019s Greenpeace Investigations pages<\/a> (prior to those pages disappearing<\/a> earlier this year) showed it: \u201cInformed Citizens for the Environment<\/a>.\u201d The identical image that Dave Anderson incorrectly captioned<\/a>. And again, as I showed here<\/a>, and here<\/a>, that Chicken Little ad was never published<\/strong> in any newspaper anywhere.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

#5.<\/a> \u201c\u2026 This campaign was co-founded by EEI and the Western Fuels Association (WFA)\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Anyone reading that assertion would interpret it to mean the Edison Electric Institute and the Western Fuels Association were co-equal creators of the ICE campaign. No different than Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard of the Hewlett Packard Corporation<\/a>. Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield of Ben & Jerry\u2019s Ice Cream<\/a>. Regarding this Williams et al. paper, their assertion about EEI as a co-founder is contradicted by EEI\u2019s own statement back in 1991, where their spokesperson unequivocally stated<\/a> that EEI \u201cis taking no part in the campaign except to provide survey results<\/em>.\u201d This is corroborated in the second-to-last paragraph of a May 12, 1991 Minneapolis Star Tribune article<\/a> which specifically states<\/a>, \u201c\u2026 Neither the National Coal Association nor the the Edison Electric Institute has gotten involved in the ICE campaign<\/em>\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is irrational to believe that a group which \u201cco-founds\u201d a significant public relations campaign would then have no involvement in running it a mere 4\u00bd months later.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

#6<\/a>. \u201c\u2026 With the <\/em>collapse<\/strong> of ICE, WFA next founded GES<\/em> \u2026\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cCollapsed\u201d is an unsubstantiated claim. Kert Davies Climate Files \/ CIC websites provide no such evidence for that claim. This Williams et al. paper\u2019s other source, the Dave Anderson \u201cUtilities Knew\u201d report, only stated in a vague and unsubstantiated way<\/a>, \u201cOnce exposed, the ICE campaign had a relatively brief shelf life<\/em> \u2026\u201d The implication is that its exposure in the news media is what caused its demise. Ross Gelbspan said as much<\/a> back in the early years of his \u201cThe Heat is Online\u201d website, but it turns out that he couldn\u2019t name 2\/3rds of the news media names correctly<\/a>. However, this is contradicted by an article at The Nation<\/em> circa November 1996 written by David Helvarg in which he states<\/a>, \u201cThe l.C.E. campaign lasted six months, and then was terminated by the Western Fuels Association<\/em>\u2026\u201d with no indication that ICE\u2019s end was any sort of public \/ news media-induced collapse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is an additional area of concern for error #2 above, namely where the authors stated about the ICE documents they acquired<\/a>, \u201c\u2026 To the best of our knowledge, for the two relatively short-lived denial front groups associated with the industry\u2014the Information Council on<\/mark> the Environment (ICE) \u2026 <\/em>all publicly available documents<\/strong> were included in the analysis<\/em>.\u201d The documents tally at Kert Davies\u2019 Climate Files page, which these authors cite, is 27. To offer some latitude to the authors, the other Climate Files \u2018ICE docs\u2019 files that they do not<\/em> cite, \u201c1991 Information Council on the Environment Test Denial Campaign Plan and Survey<\/a>\u201d has 19 docs. Thus, 46 total attributed to ICE. The \u201cGreenpeace USA ne\u00e9 Ozone Action\u201d \u2018ICE scans\u2019 collection<\/a> \u2014 no longer publicly available as of recent months, while a downloaded PDF file copy version still is at my blog<\/a> \u2014 is 50 pages. However, one page is Ozone Action\u2019s cover page, and page 6 is a duplicate of page 2, pg 14 is a duplicate of pg 7, pg 15 is a duplicate of pg 8, pg 43 is a duplicate of pg 39, and pg 35<\/a> (as I detailed in my August 20, 2022 GelbspanFiles blog post<\/a>) is an extraneous addition to the \u201cGreenpeace USA ne\u00e9 Ozone Action\u201d scans that was written by somebody apparently not connected at all with the ICE campaign. So the \u201cGP ne\u00e9 OA\u201d actual tally is 44 documents. Kert Davies added an unpublished newspaper ad draft copy<\/strong> variant with the wrong name<\/a> to his docs collection, while his pg 20 is a duplicate of his page 16, in the identical way as the \u201cGP ne\u00e9 OA\u201d pg 6\/pg 2 situation. However<\/em>, as David Helvarg said in his Summer 1996 publication, there were 53 pages of ICE docs<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A minimum of 9 missing pages. Did the Williams et al. authors know that, and did the expert reviewers of their paper know that, or express any interest on what the origins of this collective \u2018leaked documents pile\u2019 were? This Williams et al. paper provides an \u2018out\u2019 on what they might not be aware of, with their line<\/a>, \u201cSince many climate denial documents are internal, it is likely that further information exists on utilities\u2019 involvement in climate denial organizations that is not public<\/em>.\u201d Yes, but the opposite also plausible, that other documents might be found which further prove that the EEI-sourced \u201creposition global warming\u201d memos subset was unsolicited by ICE campaign officials and never used. Since basically no top administrator of the ICE campaign actually saw this rejected memo set, it could not therefore have been passed along to the next \u2018Big Coal \/ Oil\u2019 \/ Electric Utility CEO to serve as some kind of template<\/a> for \u2018disinformation campaigns.\u2019 A Western Fuels Association office person told me directly that WFA\u2019s copy went into the garbage in the same way that unused contribution material from association members for WFA\u2019s annual reports were thrown out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

All of the above pertains to just 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 just that small area of text, how many more errors are in this paper?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Who were the \u201cfact checkers\u201d for this paper?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even if there are no other errors, these alone are enough to warrant a retraction request. However, it was suggested to me by a prominent scientist that a retraction effort would be a waste of time, considering the apparent stranglehold the ERL editor-in-chief<\/a> has over the content of the journal, and considering his, well, association with climate scientists<\/a> who\u2019ve hurled unsupportable<\/a> \u2013 unsupportable!<\/a> \u2013 accusations. Even if a retraction was achievable, it might take a year to accomplish.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What might be more effective is for the Williams et al. authors to be made aware of their embarrassing lack-of-research errors \u2013 somehow \u2013 to an effective enough extent that they decide to voluntarily withdraw it, so as to draw less attention to the way peer review can abysmally fail.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And maybe they might not want to people to see the one other potentially crippling problem this paper seems to have: its funding, and the people connected with that funding.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Enviro activists have, for years, suggested that even a hint of association with funding from the fossil fuel industry taints the credibility of anyone daring to question any aspect of the CAGW issue. If that\u2019s fair game, then should it not apply equally well in reverse? Notice that Williams et al. disclose at the bottom of their paper<\/a> that their \u201cresearch was financially supported by the Rockefeller Family Fund<\/em>.\u201d Who is one of the top administrators for the Rockefeller Family Fund? Associate director Lisa Guide<\/a>. Who is she married to<\/em>? John Passacantando<\/a> \u2014 they\u2019re photographed together<\/a> at Washington DC high society dinner events. Who is John Passacantando? To repeat \u2013 he\u2019s the man who headed Ozone Action back in the late 1990s who gave the worthless<\/a> \u201creposition global warming\u201d memos their first major, lasting, effective, media traction as so-called \u201csmoking gun evidence\u201d proving skeptic climate scientists were on the payroll of the energy industry to undercut the certainty of CAGW. If the accusation is that those scientists were corrupted by industry money because they \u2018do not dispute the material they are funded to disseminate,\u2019 then why would it not apply here that Williams et al. operate in an identical way, such that they jeopardize their funding if they dare to bring up all the crippling faults surrounding John Passacantando and his beloved \u201creposition global warming\u201d memos?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

All these problems put the Williams et al. authors in a world of hurt where the best escape for them is to self-censor. Later on, if the next U.S. Congress chooses to investigate both the data-tampering part of CAGW and the political accusations from certain enviro-activists, the option for these authors might have been to turn\u00a0state\u2019s evidence<\/a>\u00a0against whoever it was who came up with the idea for this paper.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

via Watts Up With That?<\/mark><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

September 26, 2022<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
Peer Reviewed Science Journal Report: ‘Electric Utility Industry’s Role in Promoting Climate Denial, Doubt, And Delay<\/a><\/blockquote>