Klinger and the RICO debacle

Arrested for eating all the donuts

Climate skeptic arrested for eating all donuts (j/k click on link for full story)

To get a grip on the Jagadish Shukla Barbara Streisand Own-goal Backfire Effect, you should start with Paul Matthews’ summary. Briefly, a bunch of scientists headed by Shukla decided to jump on the climate-tobacco bandwagon with a letter (to none less the American president) seeking persecution of ‘corporations and other organizations’ under the US RICO Act. The bunch then hastily fled the field, taking the letter down, when it was shown Shukla’s own various organizations were less than squeaky clean with federal funding.

But Shukla’s colleague Barry Klinger still hangs on at the scene of the crime so to speak, as he pens thoughts on ‘why RICO’ and his ‘ambivalence’ about the letter (which he fully signed).

These show the contradictory mish-mash that climate scientists seem to pass off as their understanding of the climate debate. To a fault, none of it seems to extend beyond the latest New York Times or Washington Post article and faithfully incorporates every trope and cliché sold by climate activists and PR hacks.

The first underlying mythical assumption of Klinger et al is a common one: the work of climate scientists greatly threatens the fossil fuel industry, which is scared of them. Fossil fuel companies provide a convenient, cartoonish ‘evil corporation‘ target for climate activists, and those in climate science with a world-justifying fuzzy feeling from imagining themselves ranged against powerful, unbeatable opponents.

In sociologic terms, fossil fuel companies are the folk-devil. But beyond this, there is little substance to the fantasy. Fossil fuel companies and their products are tightly interwoven with the fabric of modern life. Writing bad things about them is no more a ‘threat’ to them than cataloguing the evils of water (drowning, sweating) is a threat to the local water board. At best you make what they sell expensive. Forcibly making coal more expensive hurts consumers of coal power more than it does coal companies.

Klinger is all innocent about the second point in the RICO letter: We didn’t want to shut down speech, he says, only bring a few ‘giant corporations’ to court for fraud. Even there he admits the ‘standard for finding fraud is quite high’, is not sure whether a case would clear the bar, all while hoping such a case would be ‘a relatively limited affair’. Furthermore, after signing the letter, Klinger is suddenly concerned that there might be ‘squelching’ of  ‘the free speech of scientists’ themselves.

As Paul Matthews notes, with this degree of confusion it is evident Klinger should not have signed the letter at all.

The tobacco master settlement agreement and the course of actions that led to it serve as an inspiration and a template to the climate movement. In anticapitalist discourse, advertising creates unnatural demand for nonessential goods (like the shiny Yellow Hummers whose sole purpose is to consume more of the oil industry products). When fighting against it, an activist can only rail against greed, consumerism and ‘consumption’ (and look foolish). In puritannical abolitionist discourse, ‘addiction’ serves in the same role. But ‘addiction’ has a special edge—you can ignore the buyer (he’s helpless, ‘addicted’) and go after the dealer, in a legal setting.

Second is the power of the ‘internal documents’. Tobacco executives appeared before the US Senate to declare openly they did not think nicotine was addictive. Internal tobacco company memos and documents were later used to show that executives ‘knew’ about the addicting properties of tobacco. This was one of the reasons behind the abolitionists’ ‘they knew!’ success.

Climate activists presently attempt to follow both templates: the world is ‘addicted’ to fossil fuel – meaning not that it wants, desires or craves oil (which it does) but that it is not responsible for its state. Who are responsible? Companies that sell these products. As for the ‘secret internal documents’, a couple of newly minted ‘science journalists’ from the Tom Levenson school of science journalism have attempted to establish Exxon ‘knew’ the dangers of CO2 but chose to keep mum about it, using a tranche of old typewritten documents.

For climate activist zealots, it is immaterial that the square peg of CO2 does not fit in the round hole of tobacco. Any new rhetorical toy is a welcome addition for the exhausted, intellectually threadbare lot of arguments so jam it in they will. All the better if the toy has a proven track record of ‘success’ in a morality play.

But what about climate scientists themselves? They should see through that people use oil and coal products not from ‘addiction’ but because they are indispensible to normal daily life. The type and nature of their benefits are unlike tobacco’s. What about the absurd argument that Exxon ‘knew’ how bad climate change would in 1977? One hates to admit it but yes, Wikipedia’s William Connelley is right—Exxon knew as much as anyone else about the climate and what they ‘knew’ internally is what they declared externally. There is no ‘gotcha’.

Nor can there be one either. The very question of what is ‘known’ vis a vis anthropogenic climate change, i.e, set beyond reasonable doubt, remains in contest to date. What can said to be known when the IPCC has yet to say what it truly ‘knows’ with any rigor beyond appeals to ‘consensus’ and ‘expert judgment’?

Klinger himself admits to the latter. He lays out, though not explicitly, how the case for the consensus is riddled with holes. To prove he’s no alarmist, he points out he and his boss Shukla wrote papers pointing out the contribution of natural factors in 20th century climate change. Klinger says the paper is an example of their scientific equanimity. It is absurd to think he and Shukla should be considered unbiased for publishing such papers whereas Exxon should be thrown in jail were they to have referenced it.

Though Klinger inadvertently admits several points and caveats he refuses to cave in fully. What he does insist is being allowed to score points against ‘corporations’ by bringing civil suits against them, even if only briefly and futilely, simply because they just deserve their day in court. This is extrarordinarily political, activist, and short-sighted. Surely this sort of bottled-up political yearning and frustation in scientists is … dangerous?

However, it doesn’t end there. In a last gasp, as he realises the turn the letter his signed has taken Klinger argues his critics, being the advocates for free speech that they are, ought not restrict his freedom to shut down his critics from speaking freely. A fitting colophon to the RICO debacle indeed.

Advertisements

15 comments

  1. Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)

    Seems to me that if Klinger paid as little attention to the details of “climate science” as he has to Shukla’s now-you-see-it-now-you-don’t attempted “silencer”, his knowledge of the actual science – such as it is, outside his particular bailiwick – may well be very thin, indeed!

    Incidentally, when I checked CA earlier today, to see if Klinger had posted an apology – where it might have mattered – I saw no sign of it!

    Amazing, eh?!

  2. Kevin O'Neill

    Isn’t this a sort of ‘head in the sand’ treatment of the a) culpability of the tobacco companies, b)stated goals of the fossil fuels companies regarding PR and global warming, c) fact that many of the same PR players for tobacco moved over to fossil fuels, and d) this was not a case where individual companies arrived coincidentally at the same position – it was mapped out by their associations.

    If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

    Early in this country’s history (USA) and until the mid 19th century corporate charters usually included ‘good citizen’ clauses. A corporation’s charter could be revoked at any time if they failed to act as good citizens. Surprisingly while ‘original intent’ is frequently brought up by conservatives vis vis Supreme Court rulings – they never mention this. How many corporations would simply cease to exist if good citizen clauses were still in force today?

    One really needs to understand this graph from a post on Emissions Reductions over at And Then There’s Physics. What the fossil fuels companies have done is push us further down the road and limited our options. It’s like having a balloon loan and failing to make any payments (or save anything towards making payments) until the last minute. The result is going to be a shock to your finances and/or your standard of living.

  3. Brad Keyes

    Kevin,

    Isn’t this a sort of ‘head in the sand’ treatment of the a) culpability of the tobacco companies

    Sigh. No. No it’s not. Shub does not exculpate the tobacco companies. Give it a rest.

    (Or are you addicted to this tawdry trope? Have you tried a support group?)

  4. Brad Keyes

    Shub, yeah, this kind of thing shits me to tears too:

    Though Klinger inadvertently admits several points and caveats he refuses to cave in fully.

    There needs to be a limit. After ten caveats a cavein should be a compulsory.

  5. michael hart

    Kevin, Big oil, in the shape of Standard Oil, was most famous for its monopoly tactics going back to times more than a century ago. The intent of this was, of course, to maximise profits by keeping prices artificially high. Anti-trust laws were enacted to make this more difficult for large corporations. The green lobby now wants to make prices artificially high, and yet continue blaming big oil.

    Such self inconsistency and lack of self-awareness arises from the need to have an ever-present ‘evil enemy’ to blame, and the classic mistake of believing your own propaganda.

  6. Shub Niggurath

    Brad, Klinger has a conscience working somewhere but he’s still holding on. I’m sure though that the Lamar Smith letter must have fortified his pro-RICO resolve.

  7. Shub Niggurath

    Kevin, the tobacco companies, through the ’50s and ’60s insisted on personal responsibility of the user of the product as a shield against American legal innovations of transferring blame on to them. It worked. The smoker knows what he was taking in was not good. With ‘addiction’, the smoker was suddenly not responsible, he was a slobbering, out-of-control zombie mess who couldn’t help lighting the next one up and killing himself. Personal responsibility was superceded by the will-extirpating power of addiction.

    If you tell me that people use fossil fuel products in the same way as tobacco, no one but the legal innovators themselves bear the burden of proof on this. They (i.e, you) need to show how tobacco, which produces intangible benefits and a host of direct and visible harm, is the same as the gasoline that goes into your car.

  8. Pingback: RICO20 Letter to President Obama Disappears | Big Picture News, Informed Analysis
  9. Brad Keyes

    Shub,

    As a (pharmacological) libertarian I’m all for personal responsibility but I also have a [disproportionate?] professional interest in the predicament of a small fraction of the population in which personal responsibility might legitimately be argued to be compromised vis a vis abstention from smoking: people affected by schizophrenia, most of whom (for whatever reason) have more nicotinic receptors than the population average, and 80% of whom smoke in the US, as compared to 20% of non-schizophrenic Americans. It angries up the blood (and poses a challenge to simple assignations of responsibility) to see clusters of patients smoking like proverbial chimneys in the parking lots of mental health centres, given that if they survive the various mortal risks associated with mental illness, they’re only setting themselves up for an early death from airway malignancies and other respiratory and cardiovascular sequelae of inhaling burnt tobacco emissions for fun. I don’t know the answer, or even whether there is an answer, just putting it out there. Oh, wait, I’ve got the answer: compulsory electronification of Big Nicotine. LOL

  10. Pingback: RICO-teering: How climate activists ‘knew’ they were going to pin the blame on Exxon | Shub Niggurath Climate
  11. Pingback: Document suggests that a Climate activist shadow organization was behind the #RICO20 allegations | Watts Up With That?
  12. Pingback: Document suggests that a Climate activist shadow organization was behind the #RICO20 allegations | Daily Green World