Those who have not read "The 'Obfuscation Agenda'", a letter sent by Sens. Rockefeller (D,WV) and Snowe (R,ME) to ExxonMobil CEO Rex W. Tillerson, missed perhaps one of the most important documents of this century.
Diaried about -- brilliantly, as always -- HERE by Jerome a Paris, the letter itself is by a long shot, the most cogent summary of how ExxonMobil actively promotes intellectual dishonesty to discredit global climate science. The motivations of career politicians aside, the issues addressed by the letter are dead on.
But what about the WSJ? IMO, their response was willfully dishonest, a cowardly distortion shouted from the safety of "editorial" anonymity. I will argue "intent" below; if you agree -- but even if you don't -- does one of the world's most influential newspapers have any obligation whatsoever to be truthful?
Cross-posted at ePluribus Media
Willfully dishonest?
First, I refuse to accept that the editorial staff of the Wall Street Journal cannot read critically. That is in fact, precisely what an editor does. I think it is fair then, to assume that skill-wise the Wall Street Journal's editors are top-notch.
If we accept this, it follows that any obvious misinterpretation of Sens. Rockefeller's and Snowe's letter is really an attempt to distort its meaning. So we are left only to agree upon what is "obvious." But we won't, because "obvious" cannot be precisely defined.
But democratic societies have this amazing cure for absolutism called "consensus." It is how we elect our leaders. And for the special case in which the consensus of a community is overwhelming, we use the word "mandate."
In the scientific community, the evidence that human activity contributes to "global warming" represents just such a mandate, even though the precise details and consequences are still being studied and debated. Those who specialize in Earth's climate system reached this consensus several years ago; and top-notch editors at top-notch newspapers everywhere know this, because it is also their job to remain informed.
So, an editor at the Wall Street Journal who takes issue with two U.S. Senators for believing that "global warming is a fact" either disagrees with the consensus of experts, a position for which s/he is NOT qualified, or is a liar with an agenda.
In either case, s/he is a fool. But, of course, judge for yourself:
The 'WSJ' writes:
"...the Senators say that everyone agrees on the facts and consequences of climate change."
This is an excellent example of the WSJ's intellectual dishonesty. The senators' letter does overstate its case near the end, with the phrase "an insurmountable scientific consensus on both the problem and causation of climate change." Admittedly, this is poorly worded, because although climate scientists do overwhelmingly agree that Earth is getting warmer, and that human activity, e.g. increasing carbon-dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, does explain at least some of that warming, they don't yet agree on exactly how. BUT BUT BUT...none of these contested details will alter the underlying consensus that humans are contributing to global warming, and broadly those activities that are stressing Earth's climate system.
But I claimed the WSJ was being intellectually dishonest. Why? Because it is abundantly clear the letter in no way claims "everyone agrees on the facts and consequences" of climate change.
The poorly worded phrase I cited above contains but 13 of the letter's 1300 words, or just 1%. If, as critical readers, we are to form our opinion including the remaining 99%, then we must consider that the senators also wrote (emphasis added):
- "...the legitimate scientific community has developed its views on climate change through rigorous peer-reviewed research..."
- "...most scientists dispassionate review of the facts has moved past acknowledgment to mitigation strategies..."
- "We would recommend that ExxonMobil publicly acknowledge both the reality of climate change and the role of humans in causing or exacerbating it..."
The professional editors of the WSJ know damn well that in this context, "[acknowledging] the reality of climate change" means admitting that the world is getting warmer, and not some blanket concession that "everyone agrees on the facts and consequences." As to the suggestion that by invoking the tobacco industry, Sens. Rockefeller and Snowe were simply making litigious threats, perhaps the editorial board has forgotten the testimony given under oath by William Campbell, James W. Johnston, Andrew H. Tisch, Thomas E. Sandefur, Joseph Taddeo, Edward A. Horrigan, and Donald S. Johnston that they "do not believe nicotine is addictive."
Ironically, the WSJ has deceived its readers with exactly the method specified in "The Obfuscation Agenda,
"the 'denial community' has mischaracterized the necessarily guarded language of serious scientific dialogue as vagueness and uncertainty"
a strong indication that they in fact, part of the "denial community." Perhaps this explains their strong, yet effectively anonymous rebuttal.
But nothing can justify the WSJ's obscene and unethical inference that by calling on ExxonMobil to acknowledge and help mitigate global warming, Sens. Rockefeller and Snowe implied they believed that "AIDS and poverty are less urgent." If the WSJ had even a shred of decency, or respect for their duty within a democracy, they'd have fired an 'editor' or two.
Accountability
I've gone on much longer than I intended, so I'll keep this part brief:
Should media outlets that claim to provide news be prohibited from intentionally misleading the public to further a hidden agenda?
- Does the fundamental goal of a free press -- ensuring transparent governance -- supercede the right to free speech, i.e. the right to lie? Though difficult to prosecute, some forms of lying constitute an illegal act, e.g. libel, perjury, and fraud.
- Is it even possible to regulate and monitor "news," and by doing so are we just starting down a "slippery slope?"
- How can we protect the average American from being manipulated by large corporations, who invest essentially infinite resources into the art and practice of manipulating average Americans?
- Can we successfully partition "news" from "spin" or "propaganda," or is it incumbent on the citizens of a democracy to learn and decide for themselves which is which?