I understand that cable news networks often feel compelled to broadcast live hearings when, say, Fed Chair Jerome Powell appears before a Congressional committee but I usually turn it off in favor of Judge Judy, where the maturity level is higher and matters actually get resolved. Congressional hearings tend to be dominated by posturing, with members either asking obvious and pointless questions like “Is the budget deficit bad?” or pandering to their voters, such as, “Are you a Razorback fan?” or just scoring political points, with things like “Don’t you agree that my political opponents are responsible for the (fill in the blank)?”
Perhaps the executives will be held, not for contempt of Congress, but for impersonating lawmakers. The amount of disinformation spoken on the floors and halls of Congress every day probably far exceeds every effort by fossil fuel companies to mislead the public on climate change. And this observation is bipartisan in nature, whether it’s vaccine skepticism, ‘stop the steal,’ or ‘this spending/tax cut will pay for itself.’ One presumes Al Gore won’t be called to account for the misinformation in his film “An Inconvenient Truth.”
Oil companies are the favorite whipping persons for many in Congress and few are willing to defend them. But it seems unreal to suggest that any politicians have had their pre-conceived notions changed by commercials, ads, or anything produced by fossil fuel producers to misinform them about climate change, just as skeptics would come away from “An Inconvenient Truth” unaffected. Research has shown that people tend to cling to their beliefs, and even when presented with contradicting information, often become more certain rather than less.
And authors like Michael Shellenberger (Apocalypse Never) and Steven Koonins (Unsettled) have noted that many climate change activists have also misinformed the public about climate change science, making completely unsupported claims. Indeed, nearly every major issue discussed before Congress includes numerous arguments that are either seriously questionable or blatantly false.
Which is nothing new. In the 19th century, a member of the House of Lords opposed assisting the Irish during the Great Famine, citing research that people could thrive on a diet of grass and seaweed. Sadly, no one asked him to attempt that feat. I suspect that Pericles was accused of being on the payroll of the Athenian shipbuilders’ industry.
The real inconvenient truth is that consumers are primarily responsible for greenhouse gas emissions, not producers, and they do so willingly. No one is forced to buy an SUV or have long commutes. And if the mass of opinion about the threat of climate change doesn’t convince skeptics, why would a campaign from the fossil fuel industry (or rice producers, or landfill owners, or steakhouses, etc., etc.) have changed views?
The attack on the expression of opinion on an uncertain but controversial issue is also not new. Paul Ehrlich argued against the publication of dissenting opinions by Julian Simon, calling him a ‘flat-earthist,’ a title also applied by peak oil advocates to their opponents. I am the ‘high priest of flat earth economists’ according to one, as well as a ‘faith-healer.’ When the New York Times
NYT
published an op-ed I wrote arguing that peak oil theories were incorrect, numerous comments attacked the publication for daring to present such an opinion.
There are people who embrace a green life style and are willing to pay more for green energy, but if that were true of the general public, the administration and its allies would not be proposing massive support for the renewable energy industry. (Especially since we’re told solar and wind are the cheapest forms of energy.) No doubt, the questioners today will salivate at the opportunity to get publicity for slamming oil companies on camera, but this will remind many of us of the golden age of Barnum and Bailey’s productions. Or maybe instead of C-Span covering the hearings, they should be hosted by Jeff Ross, the Roastmaster General, on Comedy Central.
Sources:
Julian Simon: A Reply to My Critics
Wall Street Journal 2004 “As prices soar, doomsayers provoke debate on oil’s future”
