If this was Exxon pushing a PDF promoting skeptical views, it would be on the front page tomorrow. Where are the front page headlines?
“Bankers feed scare-mongering report”
Instead it’s just Deutsche Bank try to save the world their profit line.
Just in case you are missing your daily dose of being spoon fed propaganda by Bankers who want your money, see Climate Spectator Balancing reason and risk, where Deutsche Bank is helping the skeptics by giving us yet another example of just how desperate they are to get carbon trading running.
Q: When will the bankers worry about whales?
(Ans: When they can trade Humpback Credits.)
The good news is we are getting to them, and we are marking the lines they need to jump over. They now admit it looks bad when they denigrate scientists (they finally “get” that they shouldn’t call scientists deniers):
Although the scientific community has already addressed the sceptic arguments in some detail, there is still a public perception that scientists have been dismissive of the sceptic viewpoint,
Watch how they pretend to care about the science (science-schmaltz), even as they trash the scientific method by arguing from authority:
…we at Deutsche Bank Climate Change Advisors (DBCCA) have always said that the science is one essential foundation of the whole climate change investment thesis. Navigating the scientific debate is therefore vitally important for investors in this space.
For these reasons, we asked our advisors at the Columbia Climate Center at the Earth Institute, Columbia University, to examine as many as possible of the major sceptic claims in the light of the latest peer reviewed scientific literature and to weigh the arguments of each side in the balance.
The result is, [a 51 page document!] we believe, a balanced, expert, and detailed assessment of the scientific case for climate change that will help investors navigate these extremely complex issues.
As always, there’s “that line” where the basic physics that might give us 1.2 degrees is hailed as if it explains it all:
To us, the most persuasive argument in support of climate change is that the basic laws of physics dictate that increasing carbon dioxide levels in the earth’s atmosphere produce warming. (This will be the case irrespective of other climate events.)
But lookee here. The feedback argument makes an appearance. So Deutsche Bank are forced to come up to another line we’ve drawn in the sand. They admit they have to answer:
The only way that warming can be mitigated by natural processes is if there are countervailing ‘feedback mechanisms’, such as cooling from increased cloud cover caused by the changing climate.
Then there is the straight out deceit:
A key finding of the current research is that there has so far been no evidence of such countervailing factors.
No evidence? Douglass 2007, Spencer 2007, Lindzen & Choi 2010, McKitrick 2010, McShane 2010, Spencer 2010 and of course, the entire radiosonde record going back to 1959.
In fact, most observed and anticipated feedback mechanisms are actually working to amplify the warming process, not reduce it.
That’s according to the models that predict things we know don’t happen.
This is an information war
The lesson from this is that even the most well resourced advocates armed with PR, marketing and teams of scientists can’t endlessly back a false claim, not as long as we have free speech. With next to no resources we’re setting the rules. We’ve pointed out their bad manners, their censorship and their name-calling, and so even the bullies recognize there’s a price — they can’t afford to be “seen” doing those things. So they finally start being polite, finally admit there are “uncertainties”, and admit the feedbacks are worth talking about.
Next step: we need to point out why “Bankers Really Want Us To Trade Carbon” and show it for what it is. When bankers push it on us, it marks them as profit hungry corporations who are happy to see their customers cheated, who have no interest in protecting their investors, and are keen to join in the propaganda war. We need to make their every attempt a net negative for them. The alarmists made it too painful for Exxon to support skeptics with pitifully small amounts, so we are only returning fire with fire. If Exxon can’t support unpaid skeptics, why should Bankers get away with pushing their power-hungry, profit-seeking legislation that is backed-by-a-fake-consensus and supported by scientists who cheat, hide data, and declare only half the truth?
When the public starts to associate bankers pushing carbon-scares as being bad corporate citizens, the bankers will sit it out quietly. They’ll still fund the PR, but they won’t want their name on it. It will be another small win for us.
Note their Disclaimer:
This material is intended for informational purposes only and it is not intended that it be relied on to make any investment decision.
ie: we can lie to you and it’s ok, you can’t sue us.
Who would trust this bank?
Their 51 page pdf report attacks all the usual Strawmen.