Circular arguments tend to occur when a speaker cherry picks information with the sole intent of arriving at a predetermined set of conclusions. For those interested in a perfect example of fallacious (and dishonest) circular reasoning, look to longtime #ExxonKnew activists Naomi Oreskes and Geoffrey Supran and their latest logic-contorting piece published by Environmental Research Letters (ERL) today.

Oreskes’s and Supran’s latest work of art comes in response to an analysis on Friday from Vijay Swarup, ExxonMobil Vice President of Research and Development, that refutes, debunks, and disproves the activists’ 2017 study that falsely accused the company of misleading the public on climate change. In their strained “rebuttal to a rebuttal,” however, Oreskes and Supran further expose their report’s biased, pre-determined engineering and hypocrisy. Most notably:

1. Just happening to miss a couple hundred documents as part of their original research;
2. Purposely conflating three different companies, and pretending as if they were one;
3. Downplaying an expert they cited;
4. Failing to disclose massive conflicts of interest and engaging in hypocritical attacks.

Read the full blog at EIDClimate.org.

This post appeared first on Energy In Depth.