The same lies but with new tactics

We know a lot about how the climate sceptic industry works but here’s some reminders of their playbook.

As early as the 1950’s, fossil fuel corporations learnt that their industry was likely causing damage to the earth’s atmosphere, and certainly by the 70’s and 80’s, they were intimately aware that they posed a threat to all life on earth.

They often conducted or funded cutting edge climate science research, which gave them the ability to keep the research private or meddle with the findings, as well as eventually defunding their research.

But more importantly, the industry threw millions of dollars behind campaigns to cast doubt over the emerging science - even their own.

What they did is often referred to as the “Scientific Certainty Augmentation Method” - with the appropriate acronym of “SCAM”.

The industry worked with scientists, politicians and media to dispute the certainty or reliability of the research proving climate change, causing mass confusion in the public.

For example, a 1997 Mobil advertorial in the NYT said:

“‘Let’s face it: The science of climate change is too uncertain to mandate a plan of action that could plunge economies into turmoil…Scientists cannot predict with certainty if temperatures will increase, by how much and where changes will occur.”

But eventually, public opinion moved towards accepting the science of human-induced climate change, and the industry had to change tactics.

The industry pivoted to tacitly accepting the science (in some cases) and moving to challenging the effectiveness of policy to address climate change.

For example, research on climate contrarian think tanks shows that these bodies, who are often backed by fossil fuel lobbies, began to focus on attacking climate policies as opposed to climate science some time around 2008.

In addition, fossil fuel companies have become masters at “greenwashing” which is the deliberate portrayal of a business as greener than it actually is.

For example, fossil fuel companies have often advertised their renewable energy production and climate change mitigation technologies, despite still spending more than 90% of their budgets on fossil fuels.

Now, fossil fuel companies are turning their attention to new online mediums.

New research by Törnberg and Törnberg has outlined the multi-modal methods (i.e. images, video) used by climate deniers as they adapt to the dominant forms of social media.

Falsifying Scientific Objectivity

The visual communication of climate sceptics online is marked by a neutral and direct aesthetic, attempting to present information as objective.

Often, these visuals include datapoints or technical jargon that is used in an attempt to falsify a feeling of scientific rigor or objectivity.

For example, sceptics often use images of technical processes inside a nuclear power plant when presenting misinformation, lending an air of objective knowledge devoid of emotion.

The authors claim:

“The denialist narrative seeks to visually claim the mantle of scientific neutrality and rationality, positioning itself as a more legitimate representative of truth than the scientific consensus that it opposes.”

Attacking Opponents

The neutral, scientific communications sent by sceptics is sharply contrasted with their portrayal of climate activists as irrational and emotional.

For example, the sceptics often post images of angry or crying climate protesters, attempting to delegitimize the movement as overly subjective or even cult-like.

Similarly, the framing of climate scepticism as scientific or rational is also contrasted with portrayals of climate activism as being driven by some political ideology - usually authoritarianism or communism.

For example, imagery often links climate activists leaders like Mao or with propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels, attempting to draw a direct link between authoritarian propaganda efforts and climate activism or policy.

It is also a common refrain of contemporary climate denialists that climate policies are just the first step in a process of the government increasing their control over the population on the road to communism e.g. conspiracy theories on 20 minute cities or low emission driving zones.

The new tactics are accurately summarised by the authors:

“The absence of a clear motivational frame or calls for concrete action is likely a strategic choice, as overt political mobilization would undermine their framing as depoliticized, neutral observers. This strategic depoliticization makes the movement’s messaging more appealing to politically disen-gaged individuals, allowing them to reach a broader audience under the guise of scientific objectivity.”

Research on these new tactics are extremely important.

Exposing people to online misinformation and climate denial tactics helps to “innoculate” them against misinformation (Cook et al 2017).

The fossil fuel industry is still running with the same old lies but through new methods.