Another proper interview ten years late

Last night on the BBC's Newsnight, after a report by George Monbiot, Myron Ebell presented himself on the TV. This was only after the BBC had checked with Exxon to verify that they were too cowardly for an interview. They supplied a written statement with the usual boilerplate about how they fund lots of different groups which don't all subscribe to their views. In other words, they fire off a lot of harmless decoys to distract your attention so they can get round and shoot you in the back.

UPDATE: See the whole show on you-tube -- thanks to random variable.

Q: Myron Ebell, why do you imagine that Exxon give you money?

Ebell: You know, I think the attempt here to claim that only the purest of the pure can engage in the public policy...

Q: Please answer the question, Mr Ebell. Why do you imagine they give you money?

Ebell: Because we send them letters asking for money to support out general programs. Our general programs is this: do you believe in free markets? and we support policies to promote less regulation in people's daily lives.

Q: And they would not be giving you that money if you were, for example, taking a different view on climate change?

Ebell: I suppose that's right. We develop our policies, and then we try to find funding for them. Some we find some funding, other's we find very little.

...

In other words, he's claiming that the CEI is acting like a door-to-door salesman selling PR, rather than one that stays in the shop until you come over and ask for their services.

Q: Mr Ebell, you don't contest the science of [climate change], do you?

Ebell: Uh, no.

Q: What is your beef then?

Ebell: We tried to make two points in those ads. In the first we tried to point out the huge, the enormous, the inconceivable blessing that access to modern energy brings to humanity. And in the second ad we tried to show that the public policy debate is really skewed by a certain small group of scientists, particularly by the media, who give very large headlines to every piece of research that comes out that supports the alarmist agenda, and basically ignores every piece of research that shows that climate change could have some beneficial effects or some perfectly neutral effects.

Q: Although you yourself are not a scientist, are you?

Ebell: Uh, no. And I should make that clear, I am not a scientist.

...

That's correct. What he is is a calculated liar who will carry on saying something that has been proven to be false in as many places as he thinks don't know it yet.

The interview referred to in the following exchange is from the BBC in 2004 on the right hand panel of this blog. Due to the power of the internet you can magically refer to real sources and hear Myron's words in context -- actually making them sound more extreme, not less.

Q: Mr Ebell, you are not a scientist. It is clear that many people on your side of the fence are misrepresenting the arguments. You yourself described the government's chief scientific advisor in this country of "knowing nothing about climate science". He is at least a scientist. Now, do you see the problem that respectable scientists have with the sort of points made by organizations such as yours?

Ebell: No, I do see it if people are continually misquoted as you have just misquoted me. What you have just said -- and this was in a BBC interview -- you have taken completely out of context. You have distorted it to make a political point. Now if you want to discuss this in a reasonable manner, I am perfectly willing to do that. But if you want to try to pigeon-hole me by taking a little piece of an interview out of context, then I don't see the point in trying to engage in a rational discourse.

Q: Just for the record, do you also deny saying that "climate change was a myth cooked up by the EU to hamper American competitiveness"? Is that also something you didn't say, or has been taken out of context?

Ebell: Yes, I was quoting Margo Wallström, the former commissioner for the environment in the European Commission, and I quoted her I believe exactly, and then I interpreted what she was saying, namely that this is not about protecting the environment -- and I am now not quoting her exactly, I am paraphrasing -- this is about levelling the playing field with American businesses without which [EU] firms cannot otherwise compete. And so, again I think seeing the forest is generally useful, and not getting lost in the trees.

There are only so many tricks to use. Tony Blair used this one when confronted by his operative lies about Iraq, where he claimed that only the "totality" of his remarks could be used to damn him, not just, say, large excerpts. But, since the totality of someone's remarks doesn't exist, and is too large and mostly lost to the air without a recording device being present, as well as the fact that people are only supposed to hear parts of it, we have to settle for enough.

But to follow up his quote from Margot Wallström. The source article is here, and she did indeed say:

"[The Kyoto Protocol] is about international relations, [it] is about economy, about trying to create a level playing field for big businesses throughout the world."

Myron's interpretation is, as usual, f***ed up. He said:

"And that's because European businesses are not competitive with American businesses, and by putting a governor on our energy use, the EU hopes to hamper American competitiveness."

The actual context was that in March 2001, Bush had withdrawn the US from the Kyoto protocol. Ms Wallström was explaining why this made it very difficult for the rest of the world to carry on with it because then America would be on an uneven playing field. Consequently, if we all don't adopt Kyoto or any other climate change targets, business will once again be on an even playing field. It'll just be one that's underwater. But that's fine. I am sure the corporation of Exxon will continue to exist, long after all the bodies of the men who have supported its cause are rotting corpses who have adapted to the new environment by dying.