A new study published in the Journal nature The conclusion is that if we stop using fossil fuels, the world will be $28 trillion. Researchers at Dartmouth College explained that our planet would be richer if it weren't for the “extremely hot” fossil fuel companies. [emphasis, links added]
To draw such a compelling conclusion, many media in traditional media can breathe.
A report in CBS News quoted celebrity climate scientist Michael Mann for supporting the study.
The DC Court recently approved Mann against two bloggers in his defamation lawsuit, saying “When they provided false evidence and made false statements to the jury and the court, he acted in a malicious capacity.”
The CBS News report does not mention this.
“Extreme weather events continue [to] destroy [sic] Community and stress finance,” the study report this New York Times nation.
The main paragraphs in the Associated Press report are compared using fossil fuels, the basis for more than 80% of the world's energy and thousands of consumer products.
The study, associated Press climate journalist Seth Borenstein, said, “makes it easier for people and governments to make companies financially responsible.”
These articles do not mention that the methods used in the research were not developed by impartial researchers specializing in the following sciences.
The method proved to be developed by anti-fossil fuel activists with the aim of supporting climate litigation against oil companies.
The authors of the study also consulted a lawyer working in a law firm that profited from climate litigation.
“Attribution Science” designed for litigation, but powerful
The study’s conclusions are based on so-called “attribution science,” which was specifically used by a group of climate activists to help file lawsuits against oil companies.
One of the main organizations that drive this approach is the World Weather Attribution (WWA) initiative.
In articles about the field, its co-founder climatologist Friederike Otto told politics In 2019, “unlike the general climate science or every other branch of science, In fact, the attribution of the incident was initially kept in mind in the court.. ”
Otto explained in an interview with Concordia University last year that this field of science is Complaints against oil companies based on scientific basis.
“All their methods are available,” the Associated Press article quoted Otto, who was not involved in the Dartmouth study. [the Dartmouth researchers] It's very powerful to use. ”
The reporter then described WWA as a “collection of scientists who try to quickly attribute research to see if climate change will worsen by specific extreme weather events.”
In 2022, the Associated Press received $8 million in funding from anti-fossil fuel advocacy groups, including the William and Flora HP Foundation, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Four Elements, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Walton Family Foundation.
The media said these are just “charity partners” and maintained editorial control over their content.
White people don't have to apply
In an interview with British feminist publications femaleOtto believes that it is important to get women to conduct climate research:
“Who’s ‘science’ is a very important question, so if whites are specifically dealing with climate change, it means that the question being asked is a question related to whites.”
“But the people who are most affected by climate change are not white people,” he said. “So if all of these other people are effectively excluded from the scientific process, the problems we have to face in climate change will not be properly solved and you won’t find a solution on how to best change society.”
Otto did not explain how it was affected by CO2 emissions, especially looking for people based on their gender and race.
Try to assign blame by company
In hisHonest brokerAlternative, Dr. Roger Pielke, retired professor of environmental science at the University of Colorado-Boulder University, explained that the intergovernmental group meeting among the world's leading climate researchers in the United Nations climate change community questioned that a single event could attribute a single event to climate change.
“Scientists cannot directly answer whether a particular event is caused by climate change, because extremes do happen, and any particular weather and climate event is the result of a complex combination of human and natural factors. Instead, scientists quantify the relative importance of human and natural effects on the magnitude and/or probability of specific extreme weather events. ” IPCC said in its AR6 report.
Dartmouth's research attempts to blame the alleged contribution of specific oil companies to $28 trillion in compensation worldwide.
According to the study, Chevron caused as much as $3.6 trillion in “heat-related losses” between 1991 and 2020. ExxonMobil was responsible for $1.91 trillion, adding that Saudi Ameto had $205 million.
Dr. Christopher Callahan, principal investigator at Dartmouth Research, told Just news This is an “unfortunate misreading of IPCC conclusions”.
“Our study does not believe that a given heat wave is caused entirely by the emitter, but rather that the emitter increases the intensity of the heat wave that may occur naturally,” he said. He said.
Callahan noted that the IPCC also noted: “Scientists can now quantify the contribution of human influence to the amplitude and probability of many extreme events” and that “for many thermal extremes, the attribution increase in probability and amplitude are determined.”
“Our findings are in full compliance with that consensus,” Callahan said.
Tactical Science
Pielke wrote in his article that attribution science is in response to the failure of IPCC traditional methods to achieve high confidence in the detection and trend ranges in the frequency and intensity of most extreme weather events.
Pielke believes that climate change caused by human activities does pose risks and should not be ignored. But, he wrote, “The importance of climate change as a problem does not mean that we can or should ignore scientific integrity.”
Pielke calls attribution science a form of “tactical science”, which is a study specifically targeting political and legal goals.
He said such research is not necessarily bad research. However, because it has an agenda, it deserves more review, especially as journalists report on these studies, especially those that have not been peer-reviewed.
For example, WWA conducted a study claiming that last year's deadly Hurricane Helen was 500 times more likely than CO2 emissions. CNN reported the study in this study, but never mentioned that it was not peer-reviewed. The Dartmouth study was peer-reviewed.
Read on news only
