Fred Singer went on to be associated with (and sometimes spokesperson for) organizations receiving funding from Exxon for a global warming disinformation campaign — a campaign Exxon funded with 16 million to 43 organizations, a campaign that was also associated with some of the same folks who worked on the tobacco disinformation campaign (as shown in links I’ve provided in previous comments).

The disinformation campaign funded by Exxon was not science, but a public relations campaign by a corporate giant that saw its financial future threatened and figured that 16 million in charitable donations was a bargain compared to their potential losses.

Exxon’s losses, by the way, would not have been simply a sign of a weakened economy, but something to which the economy would have adapted, if challenged to do so, through inventiveness and entrepreneurship (for cars and more) and public investment in improved infrastructure (conversion of public utilities to more renewable sources). More local, renewable power would have been a boost to many local economies, though a temporary loss to some stockholders. Lost jobs in oil exploration, refining and distribution would have been made up for in new sectors.

With foresight and a nimble economy, we would have adapted. Instead, the challenges we should have begun to face decades ago were artificially delayed by corporate greed and power. So instead of a nimble economy, we often get a petrified one, thanks to actions like those Exxon took.

And because their donations of $16 million were tax-deductable, other taxpayers had to carry a heavier tax burden, or our children will because of a higher national debt.

Those are the kind of tax loopholes that fiscal conservatives should be looking to close up.