Billion-dollar climate denial network exposed (Not Surprised)

[MiddleClassCentrist]

An extensive study into the financial networks that support groups denying the science behind climate change and opposing political action has found a vast, secretive web of think tanks and industry associations, bankrolled by conservative billionaires.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/12/billion-dollar-climate-denial-network-exposed/

Strange how conservative posters on MLW have also been so blindly in support of bad science funded by corporate dollars.

On one hand, we have climate change researched by scientists.

On the other hand we have climate change deniers being pushed by billions of dollars donated from corporations and ultra wealthy conservatives into conservative think tanks.

...

And for some reason... conservative partisans choose to support the people with the most to lose from changing business practices...

Edited December 24, 2013 by MiddleClassCentrist

[TimG]

Strange how conservative posters on MLW have also been so blindly in support of bad science funded by corporate dollars.

1) The idea that corporate science == bad and government science == good is so dumb it is laughable. Government science is driven by the agenda of the government officials that allocate the funding. This agenda is often driven by a desire to attract more funding and to expand the government bureaucracy.

2) The idea is that climate skepticism exists because of "oil money" is also laughable. The majority of skeptics are unpaid volunteers who see it as personal cause to educate people about the dangers of the climate change cult. If the oil companies have been spending any money it is on various "green" causes for PR purposes.

3) If you want to find the real conspiracy: look at the cozy relationship between the so-called "neutral" IPCC and various green groups like Greenpeace or the WWF. The IPCC is riddled with advocates who manipulate the report to advance their agenda yet have the nerve to pretend that the IPCC is an "honest assessment of the science".

Perhaps the most insulting thing about this op is it presumes that people cannot look at the facts and conclude that a "climate change treaty" is nothing but a huge scam without some secret "lobby". If anything, political opposition to climate treaties is a victory for grassroots politics over the crony capitalists who seek profit from government regulation instead of providing a better product or service.

Edited December 24, 2013 by TimG

[Shady]

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/12/billion-dollar-climate-denial-network-exposed/

Strange how conservative posters on MLW have also been so blindly in support of bad science funded by corporate dollars.

On one hand, we have climate change researched by scientists.

On the other hand we have climate change deniers being pushed by billions of dollars donated from corporations and ultra wealthy conservatives into conservative think tanks.

...

And for some reason... conservative partisans choose to support the people with the most to lose from changing business practices...

You're purposely ignorning, or denying the existence of scientists that dispute so-called global warming that have absolutely no connections to any of the above mentioned groups by you, and don't take even a penny from them.

[On Guard for Thee]

1) The idea that corporate science == bad and government science == good is so dumb it is laughable. Government science is driven by the agenda of the government officials that allocate the funding. This agenda is often driven by a desire to attract more funding and to expand the government bureaucracy.

2) The idea is that climate skepticism exists because of "oil money" is also laughable. The majority of skeptics are unpaid volunteers who see it as personal cause to educate people about the dangers of the climate change cult. If the oil companies have been spending any money it is on various "green" causes for PR purposes.

3) If you want to find the real conspiracy: look at the cozy relationship between the so-called "neutral" IPCC and various green groups like Greenpeace or the WWF. The IPCC is riddled with advocates who manipulate the report to advance their agenda yet have the nerve to pretend that the IPCC is an "honest assessment of the science".

Perhaps the most insulting thing about this op is it presumes that people cannot look at the facts and conclude that a "climate change treaty" is nothing but a huge scam without some secret "lobby". If anything, political opposition to climate treaties is a victory for grassroots politics over the crony capitalists who seek profit from government regulation instead of providing a better product or service.

And so I guess you believe the Exxon Mobil version of science? I have some property I'd like to show you. Really cheap. And sometimes, you can get city gas right out of the kitchen faucet.

[On Guard for Thee]

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/12/billion-dollar-climate-denial-network-exposed/

Strange how conservative posters on MLW have also been so blindly in support of bad science funded by corporate dollars.

On one hand, we have climate change researched by scientists.

On the other hand we have climate change deniers being pushed by billions of dollars donated from corporations and ultra wealthy conservatives into conservative think tanks.

...

And for some reason... conservative partisans choose to support the people with the most to lose from changing business practices...

Corporate thinking has mostly been short term. Kind of like logging companys that hate to shell out money for reforestation. The CEO won't live long enough to see those new trees show up on the ledger.

[bush_cheney2004]

....On one hand, we have climate change researched by scientists.

Al Gore is not a scientist, but he has made millions of dollars off this scam.

[BubberMiley]

I agree posters here are learning that any attempt at including substance to denier posts inevitably results in the exposure of a humiliating lack of knowledge about the topic. Best to call it a scam and the scientific community "warmies" and then scurry away before anyone notices.

[eyeball]

And for some reason... conservative partisans choose to support the people with the most to lose from changing business practices...

I think they just can't stand the idea of giving such a vast vast and growing majority of human beings including scientists and experts the respect and recognition such huge and lasting majorities deserve in a democracy.

[TimG]

I think they just can't stand the idea of giving such a vast vast and growing majority of human beings including scientists and experts the respect and recognition such huge and lasting majorities deserve in a democracy.

Yet when experts weigh in on GMOs and nuclear power the people whining about the importance of "scientific authority" when it comes to CO2 completely reject the consensus science. The hypocrisy is amazing.

The decision about what to do about CO2 emissions is largely a political question. The idea that people should blindly adopt dumb policies because some boffin with no expertise in economics or engineering claims they should is ridiculous. People need to look at the complete picture.

IOW - CO2 may cause warming but that does not mean anything can be done about it and spending money trying to reduce CO2 emissions is futile waste of resources.

Edited December 24, 2013 by TimG

[BubberMiley]

Yet when experts weigh in on GMOs and nuclear power the people whining about the importance of "scientific authority" when it comes to CO2 completely reject the consensus science. The hypocrisy is amazing.

Which people? Can you provide an example of just one?

[TimG]

Which people? Can you provide an example of just one?

Look at Greenpeace's opposition to Golden Rice:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/23126-greenpeaces-crime-against-humanity/

Fear of CO2 is strongly correlated with fear of other uses of modern technology.

The only reason "deference to scientific authority" enters into the discussion is because the anti-human development crowd wants to impose their pet policies instead of having a rational debate on what policies make sense.

Edited December 24, 2013 by TimG

[cybercoma]

1) The idea that corporate science == bad and government science == good is so dumb it is laughable. Government science is driven by the agenda of the government officials that allocate the funding. This agenda is often driven by a desire to attract more funding and to expand the government bureaucracy.

You clearly have no understanding of the scientific method, peer review, or how government funding is managed and allocated. No government has done more to stifle scientific knowledge transfer and research than the current Harper government, who has sought to gag government scientists that time and again have shown that the government's policies are not empirically based whatsoever.

2) The idea is that climate skepticism exists because of "oil money" is also laughable. The majority of skeptics are unpaid volunteers who see it as personal cause to educate people about the dangers of the climate change cult. If the oil companies have been spending any money it is on various "green" causes for PR purposes.

Oil money helps with the research, but there's no accounting for blind or worse, willful ignorance.

3) If you want to find the real conspiracy: look at the cozy relationship between the so-called "neutral" IPCC and various green groups like Greenpeace or the WWF. The IPCC is riddled with advocates who manipulate the report to advance their agenda yet have the nerve to pretend that the IPCC is an "honest assessment of the science".

The reports don't push your agenda, so they must be manipulated. There's little evidence of this, but don't let something as bothersome as empirical support get in the way of ideological gamesmanship.

Perhaps the most insulting thing about this op is it presumes that people cannot look at the facts and conclude that a "climate change treaty" is nothing but a huge scam without some secret "lobby".

People can come to whatever conclusions they want. Some conclusions are just a hell of a lot more intelligent than others.

[cybercoma]

Fear of CO2 is strongly correlated with fear of other uses of modern technology.

Tom Selleck had a moustache and so did Hitler. That must mean that Tom Selleck wanted to exterminate the Jews.

[TimG]

You clearly have no understanding of the scientific method, peer review, or how government funding is managed and allocated.

I understand it very well (better than most alarmists who can't understand the difference between a fact and an opinion). I also know that funding bodies *claim* to be allocating funds based on merit but I also know human nature and self-preservation is more important than ideals.

The reports don't push your agenda, so they must be manipulated. There's little evidence of this, but don't let something as bothersome as empirical support get in the way of ideological gamesmanship.

The reports are manipulated because one can read them and see how the facts are spun to support an alarmist narrative. You do not see the manipulation because the spin happens to align with your prejudices.

People can come to whatever conclusions they want. Some conclusions are just a hell of a lot more intelligent than others.

Yes. And a skeptical view of the climate issue is the only position that comes from a rational analysis of the evidence. People who claim that we must pay any cost to reduce CO2 because that is what the "science says" are adopting an ideological position that is not based on evidence. Edited December 24, 2013 by TimG

[cybercoma]

There's healthy skepticism then there's people that look at a blue sky and say that it's red.

[ironstone]

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/12/billion-dollar-climate-denial-network-exposed/

Strange how conservative posters on MLW have also been so blindly in support of bad science funded by corporate dollars.

On one hand, we have climate change researched by scientists.

On the other hand we have climate change deniers being pushed by billions of dollars donated from corporations and ultra wealthy conservatives into conservative think tanks.

...

And for some reason... conservative partisans choose to support the people with the most to lose from changing business practices...

And do you have a problem with the global warming side being supported by foreign lobby groups like the Tides Foundation to name but one?

By the way,I believe there are also scientists that do not support the man made global warming theory.

http://ezralevant.com/2013/12/climate-radicals-junk-science.html

http://www.climatedepot.com/

I have to admit,the global warming industry is extremely lucrative for people like David Suzuki and Al Gore.

[ironstone]

Is this the poster boy for global warming?

http://qz.com/154196/the-only-way-to-stop-climate-change-now-may-be-revolution/

[Guest]

Is this the poster boy for global warming?

http://qz.com/154196/the-only-way-to-stop-climate-change-now-may-be-revolution/

Why should anybody be surprised that a decade or two of trying to heat our homes with oversized beanies and run our cars on vegetable soup hasn't reversed the effects of 200 years of industrialization and population growth?

It better be a particularly bloody revolution if it's going to make any difference.

[bush_cheney2004]

Is this the poster boy for global warming?

http://qz.com/154196/the-only-way-to-stop-climate-change-now-may-be-revolution/

Cool....that link and story about Hansen and "climate change" featured a huge video advertisement for.....wait for it....ExxonMobil Corporation

[TimG]

Is this the poster boy for global warming?

A propaganda piece based on a graph which is pure nonsense because the uptick at the end is nothing but statistical noise based one or two data points. And people wonder why skeptics think climate scientists are incompetent or dishonest. Edited December 24, 2013 by TimG

[TimG]

A good demolition of this latest alarmist talking point:

http://www.volokh.com/2013/12/23/talking-point-born-1-billion-action-climate-change/

The point of studies like this is to sustain a narrative that environmentalist organizations are out-gunned by a sinister network of well-funded conservative organizations. Sure, outfits like AEI have sizable budgets. But consider that a single major environmentalist group, the Natural Resources Defense Council, has an annual budget over three times greater than AEI. NRDC devotes all of its resources to environmental matters, and has made climate change a priority. AEI, on the other hand, devotes the bulk of its resources to issues like tax policy, national defense, foreign policy and health care.

[On Guard for Thee]

And do you have a problem with the global warming side being supported by foreign lobby groups like the Tides Foundation to name but one?

By the way,I believe there are also scientists that do not support the man made global warming theory.

http://ezralevant.com/2013/12/climate-radicals-junk-science.html

http://www.climatedepot.com/

I have to admit,the global warming industry is extremely lucrative for people like David Suzuki and Al Gore.

But nowhere near as lucrative as it is for Exxon Mobil and the boys.

[ironstone]

But nowhere near as lucrative as it is for Exxon Mobil and the boys.

Do you expect the oil companies to just sit back and do absolutely nothing?Why wouldn't they hire lobbyists protect their interests?Oil companies hire lot's of people and pay large amounts of taxes to governments.In Canada,it is Alberta that subsidizes cheap tuition and daycare in Quebec,so all that money does benefit someone,even if they don't deserve it.

Oil companies do get subsidies,but unlike wind turbine and solar companies,they produce something tangible at the end of the day.

[GostHacked]

There's healthy skepticism then there's people that look at a blue sky and say that it's red.

It's kind of a pasty blue-white these days.

[On Guard for Thee]

Do you expect the oil companies to just sit back and do absolutely nothing?Why wouldn't they hire lobbyists protect their interests?Oil companies hire lot's of people and pay large amounts of taxes to governments.In Canada,it is Alberta that subsidizes cheap tuition and daycare in Quebec,so all that money does benefit someone,even if they don't deserve it.

Oil companies do get subsidies,but unlike wind turbine and solar companies,they produce something tangible at the end of the day.

So Exxon Mobil does deserve it, but people in Quebec don't. I remind you Exxon Mobil has shown more profit than any company on the face of this planet. Now I ask you a question, who's GD oil is it anyway. Did it get bequeathed to EM? If we harnessed one tenth of one percent of the solar energy that hits the earth every day, we would fulfill our energy requirements world wide. You must have shares in Exxon.