How the oil industry made us doubt climate change
We&#x27;ll need a retrospective to know if propaganda has really gotten worse, probably.<p>Doubt peddling has been around for a while. The tactic itself is quite basic. Bring your own expert to contradict the majority opinion and create a dichotomy. But, I think it only worked because a partisanship preexisted.<p>There was already a pro-environment and pro-business side. Once it descends into political poop throwing, the content is somewhat irrelevant. It&#x27;s just content. It needs to have a certain form, maybe credentials... it&#x27;s a hurdle though. What matters is political backing, not the content of the arguments.<p>These days, we don&#x27;t even need merchants of doubt anymore. A room full of oil execs crafting weasel words and uncertainty seems quaint at this point. The newer, &quot;flood the zone with shit&quot; variety of propaganda seems more powerful to me. It&#x27;s more visceral and emotional. There&#x27;s no need for consistency and you can stack unrelated &quot;arguments&quot; an way you want. Climate change is overstated. Climate change is natural. Climate change is a hoax. Climate change is cover for a pedovore conspiracy. Climate scientists are paid more than doctors. No one has to stand behind any of these claims, and the only reason to moderate them is to appeal to moderates. You can reach weirdos with weird claims and extremist with extremist ones.<p>On the whole, it&#x27;s proving more capable of having effect without a priori political support. Probably much more dangerous.