The Climate Conspiracy Theorist Who Might Soon Be Advising Congress
In the foreseeable future, the House of Representatives will hold more hearings on climate change as some promote the so-called Green New Deal. One potential witness is Professor Naomi Oreskes, a self-styled science historian.
While mislabeled as an “internationally renowned” climate change scholar, Oreskes’ true background is troubling.
For years, she attacked the American oil industry via legal techniques modeled after the anti-tobacco crusade. Her claim, boiled down, is that oil and gas companies long ago knew they were allegedly harming the planet but failed to warn people. Therefore, they owe everybody huge gobs of money, the distribution of which should be controlled by the government.
Oreskes’ official bio at Harvard lists her as a Professor of the History of Science. She has no degrees in climatology, meteorology, or atmospheric sciences, but only in mining geology.
Her “expertise” is searching through documents to find things she can twist or use out of context to further her political agenda. Since big companies have mega-millions of documents, it’s child play to find discrepancies and loose language. And Oreskes’ own writings contain the very types of flaws which she considers sinister in anybody else’s paperwork.
To her, fossil fuels are an inherently dangerous product and the world should ignore how abundant affordable energy has given us such a high quality of life. Playing fast and loose with facts is justified in pursuit of a greater good. Inspired by the massive settlements paid by Big Tobacco, she sees far-bigger dollar signs when gazing at energy companies.
But what about her own history?
Oreskes was an early promoter of the theory that “scientists all agree” about global warming, basing that conclusion on reviewing just the abstracts (short summaries) of articles written by others. She then co-authored the conspiracy theory book Merchants of Doubt to claim that we’ve been duped by slick advertising telling us that oil and gas are good.
Her ideas come with an automatic guarantee for adulation from the activist left and Hollywood. The general public, it seems, is a bit more discerning. Her book climbed to its current, lofty rank of #21,300 on Amazon’s best-seller list. The movie version grossed a whopping $308,156 — so instead they made it free on the Internet.
Fair presentations are not her strength. She told one interviewer that it’s not right to give equal weight to both sides of an issue.
How has she launched her attack in the courts? In 2012 Oreskes coordinated the La Jolla conference of left-wing activists and developed a strategy of nationwide lawsuits against oil and gas.
In 2015 Oreskes directly petitioned the New York State Attorney General to consider state action against the oil industry. She followed with a “training workshop” to indoctrinate attorney generals’ offices from more than a dozen states (similar to her grooming of countless media figures).
The legal strategy is that if anyone within a giant energy company ever expressed concerns or disagreements about anything then the company is engaged in a conspiracy (and securities fraud) if it fails to adopt or publicize these differing conclusions.
Obligingly, lawsuits and investigations have been brought by Democrat attorney generals, such as those in New York, Massachusetts and Rhode Island. But the actual legal work is often supplied by wealthy environmentalists — something which those well-heeled benefactors tried to conceal from the public.
Oreskes’ conspiracy theory approach also contends that statements by one company prior to its merger with another prove misconduct by the other company. Thus she views the 1999 merger of Exxon and Mobil with the feverish, paranoid eyes of the conspiracy theorist. Should Chrysler be held accountable for business decisions made by FIAT before they merged?
But we cannot forget that the entire conspiracy claim is based on “scholarly” analysis of some selected articles and of ExxonMobil’s public communications.
It turns out, though, that there are disputes about Oreskes’ approach. Oreskes’ work is fundamentally flawed, according to analysis by Professor Kimberly Neuendorf, a communications content expert at Cleveland State University. Neuendorf concluded that Oreske’s work “lacks reliability, validity, objectivity, generalizability, and replicability.”
How sad and scary if our essential energy industry should have its fate decided by competing scholarly opinions. And how terrible for consumers if conspiracy theories like Oreskes’ keep spreading. Or maybe the real conspiracy that of the wealthy donors who have bet their fortunes on replacing oil and gas with their Green New Deal?
We elect people to make common-sense decisions, not just rely on ivory tower studies. The politicians should remember that approach Oreskes with skepticism if and when she testifies on Capitol Hill.
Professor Ernest Istook teaches political science at Utah Valley University. Horace Cooper is a senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research.
