I’ll nominate the one who inspired this thread: Bjørn Lomborg.
I’ve heard the Lomborg school described as the denialism that you have when you deny that you deny. 'Twas not always so:
His attitude to global warming has changed gradually over the years (see here on Lomborg-errors) , but there is something common to all his statements on CO2 emissions over the years. It is common that the conclusions are the same - namely that we should make no efforts to seriously cut back CO2 emissions from fossil fuels.
The arguments have shifted approximately as follows:
1) There is no problem
2) If there is a problem, it is only minor.
3) If it is not minor, it will pay better to remedy other problems that are even larger.
4) If it pays to resolve the climate change problem, this should not be done by reducing CO2 emissions, but rather by adaptation and by applying geo-engineering.
5) If adaptation and geo-engineering is not enough, then reductions in CO2 emissions should be very modest, and the main emphasis should be on research to find better alternative energy sources, rather than those that could be implemented right now.These shifting arguments over the years look like a tactical retreat. In every case, the conclusion is that which is the best that the fossil fuel industry could obtain, given the premises. At any level of public concern, always choose that solution which interferes the least with the industry´s economic interests and maintains the maximum rate of profit for as many years as possible.
I’ll refine my nomination to Lomborg’s output from 1997 (when he was evidently bought) onward. Trolling through the work of reputable scientists to work out how best to misrepresent it could be considered research. The predetermined outcome is: whatever’s in the interests of short-term profits (namely delay in action).
