{"id":324077,"date":"2024-04-26T14:27:14","date_gmt":"2024-04-26T12:27:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=324077"},"modified":"2024-04-26T14:27:17","modified_gmt":"2024-04-26T12:27:17","slug":"the-be-all-end-all-chicken-little-advertorial-when-its-all-you-got-you-still-have-nothing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=324077","title":{"rendered":"The Be-All \/ End-All \u201cChicken Little\u201d Advertorial: When It\u2019s All You Got, You. Still. Have. Nothing."},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

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

From Watts Up With That?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

From the Gelbspan Files<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Russell Cook<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1)<\/strong> If you were going to adamantly suggest that \u2018fossil fuel company executives and the shill experts they hired to spread disinformation<\/em>\u2019 should be charged with climate homicide; and\/or 2)<\/strong> if you were going to advocate that regulatory bodies \/ organizations have the power to enforce laws against the spread of fossil fuel industry disinformation and persecute those who break them; and\/or 3)<\/strong> if you tout yourself as an expert<\/a> on such industry disinformation while making yourself available for law firms<\/a> currently suing fossil fuel for global warming damages \u2014 it would be political suicide<\/em><\/strong> to put all your eggs in the one basket of a so-called newspaper disinformation advertorial titled \u201cWho told you the earth was warming, Chicken Little?<\/em>\u201d if you never bothered to find out if the advertorial was ever published anywhere . . . . wouldn\u2019t it? When it never was, you\u2019d be in huge trouble if you recklessly continued to promulgate an accusation devoid of evidence to support it, wouldn\u2019t you?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No joke, the collective enviro-activist lobby is completely enslaved to that \u201cChicken Little\u201d \u2018disinformation ad\u2019 accusation<\/a> as they try to dupe the public into believing an advertorial having that headline is smoking gun evidence of sinister fossil fuel industry disinformation campaigns. There might just be a new development about this \u2013 the question is whether somebody within that mob has tipped their hand in the last few weeks to reveal they now know the \u201cChicken Little\u201d ad is worthless.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Regarding the \u2018climate homicide\u2019 idea angle, that\u2019s entirely a product of Public Citizen\u2019s David Arkush<\/a>. I\u2019ve specifically covered his fatally faulty accusation twice before<\/a> at GelbspanFiles last year, but noted how his diatribe oddly left out the most viable-looking bit of \u2018evidence\u2019 that enviro-activists have in their arsenal for claiming industry-led disinformation campaigns exist, namely the worthless, never implemented<\/a> \u201creposition global warming\u201d memo set which goes hand-in-glove with accusations about the \u201cChicken Little\u201d ad (e.g. in the \u201cExxonKnew\u201d lawsuits<\/a>). Arkush must have been given a lecture about that missed opportunity \u2013 he popped up again on April 10, 2024 with that same \u2018homicide\u2019 mantra in his Newsweek<\/em> article \u201cBig Oil Could Face Homicide Charges<\/a>,\u201d where he offers the following<\/a> (with clickable links):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u2026 the \u201cInformation Council for the Environment\u201d set out<\/a> to \u201cReposition global warming as theory (not fact)<\/strong>\u201d through, for example, advertisements<\/a> comparing concerns about climate change to \u201cChicken Little\u2019s hysteria about the sky falling.<\/mark>\u201d This conduct did not just violate every principle of human decency; according to dozens of civil lawsuits<\/a> cases brought by cities and states across the country, it violated the law, as well. \u2026.. As a growing number<\/a> of legal experts, scientists, and former prosecutors have recently begun positing, the fossil fuel industry\u2019s knowing generation and coverup of the climate crisis may constitute a range of criminal offenses. \u2026 They could even support charges of homicide.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Right. David Arkush would have people charged with homicide based on a rejected proposal for a public relations campaign that never<\/em><\/strong> operated on a directive to \u2018reposition\u2019 anything, and based on a newspaper \u2018advertorial\u2019 that was never published<\/em><\/strong> anywhere<\/a>. And how does Arkush aim a political suicide gun at his own head on this? The first two clickable links there are the same, going to the same Union of Concerned Scientists \u201cDossier #5\u201d which the Sher Edling law firm is enslaved to<\/a> for its boilerplate copy \u201cExxonKnew\u201d lawsuits\u2019 accusations about the \u201creposition global warming\u201d memo set and the \u201cChicken Little\u201d ad, e.g. its Imperial Beach v Chevron<\/em> 2017 filing<\/a>. Lead lawyer Victor Sher proudly showed this advertorial \u2018evidence\u2019<\/a> in a 2017 presentation, in which he could not keep his details straight<\/a> about them. Meanwhile, who does the UCS cite for this? They cite the old \u201cGreenpeace USA n\u00e9e Ozone Action\u201d memo scans collection<\/a>, \u2013 with the memo set<\/a> and the pair of never-published advertorials<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One more thing here, not helpful to Arkush at all: Who does he cite in his clickable link as evidence for the \u2018growing number of legal experts positing the fuel industry\u2019s coverup constitutes criminal offenses<\/em>\u2018? A UK Guardian<\/em> article about him<\/a>. He\u2019s<\/em><\/strong> the growing number. When it becomes abundantly obvious how fatally weak his \u2018evidence\u2019 is for jailing fossil fuel industry misinformers, the number of people distancing themselves from any prior endorsement of his idea will likely skyrocket.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This embarrassment is not limited to his flawed advocacy, either.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Just under eight weeks before Arkush\u2019s\u00a0Newsweek<\/em>\u00a0article was published, the CarbonCredits group (\u201cyour source<\/a>\u00a0for carbon news, carbon pricing, carbon opportunities and more<\/em>\u201d) put out a piece titled \u201cEnding the Big Lie: No More Fake News for Fossil Fuels<\/a>\u201d on February 16, 2024. What was the headline illustration supporting their demand for the \u2018end of fossil fuel lies\u2019? No less than arguably a lie itself, also disingenuously\u00a0cropping out<\/strong>\u00a0the text at the bottom, which only adds to their self-inflicted crash. It\u2019s basically the same ill-advised cropping action that\u00a0the Sher Edling law firm inflicts upon itself<\/a>\u00a0(hold the thought for a few moments on who the image source is in that screencapture).<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

The \u2018end of lies\u2019 they advocate is a law in Canada making it illegal to falsely promote the burning of fossil fuels as a benefit to the public \u2013 <\/em>prohibiting \u2018disinformation,\u2019 in other words. They set it up this way<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

The Canadian Parliament is introducing a new drastic, and highly controversial move against false fossil fuel advertising. \u2026 it didn\u2019t always used to be this way. In fact, big oil fought for a very long time to conceal, downplay, and outright deny the evidence of the impact that fossil fuels were having on our planet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Take the picture above<\/strong>, for instance. This newspaper ad ran all the way back in 1991 and was paid for by an organization named \u201cInformed Citizens for the Environment\u201d. \u2026 Also known as the \u201cInformation Council for the Environment\u201d or ICE, this group had one simple goal<\/mark>: to \u201creposition global warming as theory (not fact).\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

No, the ICE campaign was never known as \u201cInformed Citizens,\u201d it never had the goal to \u2018reposition\u2019 anything, and the \u201cChicken Little\u201d advertorial did not run anywhere.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It doesn\u2019t stop there. CarbonCredits group . . . meet your leap-of-assumption brick wall.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

that\u2019s not just an assumption either. That\u2019s taken verbatim from one of their own internal documents \u2026.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

No, it is not<\/em><\/strong> the Western Fuels ICE campaign\u2019s own internal documents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The CarbonCredits group would have people charged with and prosecuted for promoting disinformation, of which the basis of their advocacy is a prime example of . . . . disinformation<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The \u2018verbatim internal doc\u2019 they show is their own upload<\/a> from a source they do not name. What is the source? ClimateFiles<\/a>, the same outlet who supplies Sher Edling with that \u201cChicken Little\u201d image, albeit less cropped<\/a>. Run by Roland C \u201cKert\u201d Davies<\/a>, formerly out of his Climate Files\/Climate Investigations Center, formerly out of Greenpeace USA\/Ozone Action<\/a>, now at the Center for Climate Integrity (CIC). Yes, that<\/em> CIC \u2026 which got their \u201creposition global warming\u201d memos \/ \u201cChicken Little\u201d\/ \u201cDoomsday Canceled\u201d advertorials from Kert Davies<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Regarding the countless number of times the \u201cChicken Little\u201d advertorial phrase has been repeated over the decades, it\u2019s practically endemic; I could spend hours pointing out the errors of assumption in the written narratives about the ad, it\u2019s embarrassing to see the extent of blind trust put in the accusation by people who should know enough question it first at the most minimal of levels when they view images of the advertorial<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n