“I promise you’ll be tricked by AI.” That’s the headline of a recent post by Charlotte Clymer. As an example, she shared a photo that was making the rounds on social media and pointed out all the cues showing us it was AI-generated.
What surprised me most wasn’t that the photo was fake, but how people reacted after learning it wasn’t real. She writes: “They knew they had been tricked. But the shame of being tricked was so visceral…that they couldn’t admit it.” In fact, many said they’d continue sharing the photo, even though they knew it was fake.
This is a normal human response to being duped. Most people will not change their minds when presented with facts. There are truckloads of research explaining why with terms like “confirmation bias” (seeking only information that confirms one’s opinion), “cognitive dissonance” (the mental discomfort that comes with finding out facts are contrary to strongly held beliefs), and “social identity” (the knowledge that changing one’s mind will put us in conflict with our social group). But, as Charlotte points out, what all those fancy terms feel like is shame – shame for being tricked, and shame that someone else knows we were tricked.
As a science-based person, I’ve had plenty of encounters with that feeling when new research proved I was wrong about something. I even wrote about one of those encounters here. It’s hard to say, “I was wrong,” and start down a new path. As Charlotte says, “There shouldn’t be any shame in acknowledging that our brains are wired in such a way that it’s not especially difficult for AI content to manipulate us. The shame should only come when our own pride prevents us from acknowledging our vulnerability to tech that is rewriting mass communications with every passing day.” I would add that the shame is in not taking in the new information and changing our minds.
If you’d like to read more or see the materials I used when writing this article, click here.
But getting duped isn’t limited just to AI. We all know folks who take advantage of others with scams and lies. Unfortunately, they’re not limited to the Nigerian Princes who want to share their fortunes with us, or fake notices that our email accounts are being deactivated. The biggest, most deadly scams are carried out on us by the largest corporations.
We’re going to take a look at two of these scams this week – one that may have no impact on you personally, and another that could be an existential threat. My challenge to you is to pay attention to your feelings and consider what it is that’s keeping you from changing your mind.
“Smoking Doesn’t Cause Cancer.” ~ Tobacco Industry
In 1953, executives from major tobacco companies met to discuss the growing scientific evidence, from their own researchers and many others, that smoking caused lung cancer. They decided that, rather than admit it, they would deny it.
Thus began the tobacco industry’s “merchants of doubt” strategy, one of the most infamous examples of a corporate disinformation campaign. They actively worked to confuse the public and to delay regulation by questioning established science. Their plan was summarized in an internal memo: “Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public.”1
While 99% of independent scientists agreed that smoking caused cancer, a very small number of scientists—less than 1%—publicly disputed this connection. The tobacco industry used this small fraction to create a sense of doubt. To enhance that doubt, between 1954 and 1999, the industry spent more than $500 million on research funding and grants designed to muddy the scientific consensus and create doubt about smoking’s risks.
Tobacco companies also spent billions of dollars on advertising campaigns blaming air pollution, asbestos, or genetics for the rising rates of lung cancer. They framed the debate around smoking as “unsettled” and pushed the narrative that more research was needed before any regulatory action should be taken. To that they added hundreds of millions of dollars to lobby Congress, state governments, and regulatory bodies to prevent regulations and taxes.
While tobacco companies sowed doubt and lobbied against health warnings and sales restrictions, over 100 million people worldwide died from smoking – 20 million just in the United States. At the same time, tobacco profits soared. Total profits (adjusted for inflation) from 1965 to 1995 are estimated at over $2 trillion.2
There was a small downside for them. In 1998 tobacco companies agreed to pay more than $200 billion to U.S. states over 25 years to settle lawsuits related to health care costs from smoking. That’s just 10% of their profits for the preceding decades or about $10,000 per American who died of smoking. Since the payments were spread out over a quarter century, just the interest alone on the $200 billion covered the fine. The payouts were completed in 2023. In the U.S. today, about 480,000 people per year die from smoking.3
“Climate Change is a Hoax.” ~ Oil Industry
In 1959, at its hundredth birthday celebration, the oil industry received some bad news about a significant problem with oil. Famed physicist and father of the H-Bomb Edward Teller told the gathering of oil industry executives, government officials, and others that burning fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide and that carbon dioxide causes a greenhouse effect in the atmosphere. Summarizing the danger, Teller said:
“At present the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen by 2 per cent over normal. By 1970, it will be perhaps 4 per cent, by 1980, 8 per cent, by 1990, 16 per cent [about 360 parts per million, by Teller’s accounting], if we keep on with our exponential rise in the use of purely conventional fuels. By that time, there will be a serious additional impediment for the radiation leaving the earth. Our planet will get a little warmer.”4
Teller’s numbers are surprisingly accurate. By 1990, CO2 had reached 354 parts per million, hitting 360 in 1995.5 But by that time, the oil industry was long past being surprised by this outcome. Beginning in the 1970s, Exxon scientists were studying climate change and in 1977 warned executives of “potentially catastrophic” human-caused global warming.
These oil-industry-funded scientists were acknowledged by their academic colleagues as being on the cutting edge of climate science and their predictions and models are startlingly accurate when compared with what has actually happened.6 You can see it for yourself in these graphs comparing what happened to temperatures (the red line) and to CO2 in the atmosphere (the blue line) plotted directly on the models prepared by Exxon scientists:7
Realizing what was at stake, the scientists remained optimistic about the opportunities to make a difference for the future. As Exxon research manager Harold Weinburg put it, “This may be the kind of opportunity that we are looking for to have Exxon technology, management, and leadership resources put into the context of a project aimed at benefitting mankind.”8
The researchers even provided insights into options that could prevent climate change. The American Petroleum Institute, a consortium representing the largest oil companies, suggested that the companies look into ways to reduce CO2 emissions and “Investigate the Market Penetration Requirements of Introducing a New Energy Source into World Wide Use.’ This would include the technical implications of energy source changeover, research timing, and requirements.”9
Armed with the information of the dangers of climate change from their own, highly acclaimed scientists, you’d think that Exxon leadership would say, “Hooray, let’s save humanity!” But you’d be wrong. Like the tobacco companies, they decided to deploy their own merchant of doubt strategy.10
Remember that 1% of scientists who denied the claim that smoking caused cancer? Well, the oil industry had its own 1% and they spent millions of dollars producing reports and campaigns putting the science of climate change into doubt. And, like the tobacco companies, they combined that with advertising and lobbying claiming the science was in doubt and nothing was wrong. Their lobbying efforts were so successful that they even led to President George W. Bush refusing to ratify the Kyoto Treaty on climate change.12
The oil industry’s strategy was so effective that even today, a decade since ExxonMobil quietly acknowledged that climate change was caused by humans burning fossil fuels,13 many of those they duped continue to believe climate change is a hoax.
Naturally, the oil companies are still businesses trying to make money, so when they do talk about climate change it’s about their nominal efforts to promote cleaner energy. Of course, Exxon never mentions the $41 million they spend annually lobbying against climate change-preventing regulations. When testifying under oath to a congressional committee in 2021, the heads of ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, and BP all declined to pledge to stop lobbying against climate initiatives. Darren Woods, head of ExxonMobil denied there was any inconsistency between what the company knew about climate change and what it told the public. In response, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney was reminded of another hearing Congress had with the tobacco industry.
“They said they did not believe that nicotine was addictive,” she said. “Well, it came out that they lied. Tobacco nicotine was very addictive…So I was hoping that you would not be like the tobacco industry was and lie about this.”14
If you’d like to read more or see the materials
I used when writing this article, click here.
Now What?
So…we’ve been duped and it’s really a shame. Now what are we going to do? Will we be able to take this new information and change our minds? Will we be able to start down a different path to a safer climate? I wish I knew.
What I do know is that this story will bother a lot of readers. Some will say I’m listening to the wrong people, that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by scientists who only want to make money.
Never mind that the average salary of a scientist is a little over $73,000 while the CEO of Exxon/Mobil makes $24 million a year. Never mind that in 2023 here in the U.S. we spent $4.5 billion on climate research while oil companies earned combined profits of $172.8 billion. When I follow the money it’s clear who has more to lose from altering how we power our lives.
Others will say that politics doesn’t belong in On Pasture. But it isn’t politics that by 2100 the corn belt might not be able to grow corn. It isn’t politics that the Southwest is going through a 25-year drought. This is about a climate that allows you to do the work you do, that allows you to feed the rest of the people on the planet. This is about a climate where we don’t have thousand-year floods every year (hello Vermont), or hurricanes like Helene and Milton fueled to extreme strength by our warming oceans. This is about a climate where the Colorado River flows and serves all the people who rely on it.
People who wanted to make a lot of money used their power to dupe the rest of us. Now it’s up to us to do something about it
Here’s what I’m going to do. I’m going to start by voting for candidates who aren’t bought by Big Oil, candidates who know climate change is real and are going to work with the rest of us on clean energy and changes that will power our lives and let us live safely on the one home planet we have.
Let’s save ourselves this November 5.
