PDA

View Full Version : The Climate Change Denial Racket



pjclarke
26th March 2014, 09:58
ExxonMobil has turnover of more than $1bn a day, most of it from selling oil and the corporation has more to lose than any other company from measures to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

Unfortunately for Exxon, the scientific concensus that indicates that action to reduce emissions is required is about as solid as they come; the science is not strong because of the concensus, the consensus is strong because of the science. The percentage of scientists and academic studies that underpin and support the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change is in the high 90s, and 100% of professional scientific associations have issued some kind of statement affirming the IPCC's position.

So, Exxon, and other vested interests, with little chance of influencing opinion in the academic or scientific sphere set about delaying action by spreading unreasonable doubt in the public and political sphere, with useful allies in the media and conservative political parties. Spreading doubt and misinformation can be a lucrative career choice, for example Senator James Inhofe is publically of the opinion that global warming is a scam, and he was behind a document that collected sceptical statements in the media from several hundred 'internationally renowned scientists'. You get a feel for just how desparate this position is was when you discover that they had to loosen the definition of 'scientist' to include Alan Titchmarsh, yes that Alan Titchmarsh.

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9 (Page 190)

Inhofe received campaign contributions worth $302,600 between 2009 and 2014 from the oil and gas sector.

Greenpeace surveyed the official documents released by Exxon and found 124 organisations funded by Exxon that misrepresent the science in some way. These range from free market think tanks such as the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the Heartland Institute to bogus science websites with names like the Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and fake 'grassroots' organisations. These organisations or their affilliates spread disinformation or fake uncertainty in return for ca$h.

In 2012, documents leaked from the Heartland Institute, which received $800K from Exxon, revealed that it had paid a team of writers, lead by Dr Fred Singer, ('a denier for hire' also on a $5K/month retainer from Heartland and who previously denied that CFCs and secondhand tobocco smoke were harmful) over $300K write a report "to undermine the official United Nation's IPCC reports". They also planned to release a school curriculum described as a


curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain - two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.

And they slipped $88K to Anthony Watts, who runs perhaps the most high-profile anti-science website, source of many a talking point from CUK's very own resident psuedosceptics.

In 2005, after pressure from US Senators and the Royal Society, Exxon agreed to discontinue funding misinformation, however as recently as 2009 Greenpeace found it still distributed over $1m to climate denial organisations.

By no means all of those who claim to be sceptical about AGW do so to receive covert funds from fossil fuel companies, but it is clear that some of them do. Follow the money, as they say.

Leaked Heartland Institute documents pull back curtain on climate scepticism | Leo Hickman | Environment | theguardian.com (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2012/feb/15/leaked-heartland-institute-documents-climate-scepticism)
Exxon Secrets (http://www.exxonsecrets.org/maps.php)
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00005582
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/exxon-still-aids-climate-sceptics/story-e6frg6so-1225894256861)

DodgyAgent
26th March 2014, 11:14
I have followed the money here:

Thanks to Al Gore & Maurice Strong only sun in China is a digital one (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/thanks-to-al-gore-maurice-strong-only-sun-in-china-is-a-digital-one)

Maurice Strong is richer than any Exxon executive or shareholder

Maurice Strong & Bill Gates: Expatriating Money Out Of America! | Political Vel Craft (http://politicalvelcraft.org/2012/03/12/maurice-strong-bill-gates-funneling-money-out-of-america/)

DodgyAgent
26th March 2014, 11:17
I quite like this "google it" thing:

The Australian Climate Sceptics Blog: Maurice Strong and the Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science (http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/maurice-strong-and-deliberate.html)

Ticktock
26th March 2014, 11:27
I have followed the money here:

Thanks to Al Gore & Maurice Strong only sun in China is a digital one (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/thanks-to-al-gore-maurice-strong-only-sun-in-china-is-a-digital-one)

Maurice Strong is richer than any Exxon executive or shareholder

Maurice Strong & Bill Gates: Expatriating Money Out Of America! | Political Vel Craft (http://politicalvelcraft.org/2012/03/12/maurice-strong-bill-gates-funneling-money-out-of-america/)

I'm not coming down on one side of the argument or the other, but those articles really are tosh. A quick scan of the first brought out a couple of points.
The author seems to think that because there is smog in Beijing that means that the Chinese cannot be making improvements (of course, any change would immediately scrub the skies clean, wouldn't they?).
She thinks that because it has been a particularly "brutal" winter in North America that means that climate change cannot be true... Yep, changes in climate leading to "brutal" weather are evidence that climate change is not happening.
She blames Maurice Strong for the sun not being visible in Beijing - apparently this smog stuff only started since he arrived in China.

I couldn't really glean much from the 2nd article apart from how the Chinese wanted to sell cars in America, they want to take American jobs, and loads of rambling guff. Basically one big hatchet job on anyone associated with environmentalism.

Not really the most sane of articles in either case.

DodgyAgent
26th March 2014, 11:30
I'm not coming down on one side of the argument or the other, but those articles really are tosh. A quick scan of the first brought out a couple of points.
The author seems to think that because there is smog in Beijing that means that the Chinese cannot be making improvements (of course, any change would immediately scrub the skies clean, wouldn't they?).
She thinks that because it has been a particularly "brutal" winter in North America that means that climate change cannot be true... Yep, changes in climate leading to "brutal" weather are evidence that climate change is not happening.
She blames Maurice Strong for the sun not being visible in Beijing - apparently this smog stuff only started since he arrived in China.

I couldn't really glean much from the 2nd article apart from how the Chinese wanted to sell cars in America, they want to take American jobs, and loads of rambling guff. Basically one big hatchet job on anyone associated with environmentalism.

Not really the most sane of articles in either case.

I didn't actually read them. Thanks for the summary :happy

Smartie
26th March 2014, 13:26
There's something of the Spanish Inquisition about the 'Denier' tag.
Just because not everyone agrees with the most hysterical version of global disaster due to man made global warming (often stated by those with a vested interest), that doesn't mean they don't have a well informed and considered view on the subject.

There is a consensus that we have an impact on the climate.
There isn't a consensus however on precisely what impact that is (compared to natural variation for instance) or what to do about it (and how effective our action might be).

Hands up who believes that significantly increasing energy bills in the UK (through renewable levies for instance) will have any useful impact on global warming, sorry climate change ;-)

If people were that serious about renewable energy they'd be building a load of nuclear power stations rather than tinkering with wind farms. That would see us through until clean, cheap, limitless energy from industrial scale nuclear fusion arrives, probably in about 50 years.

Bunk
26th March 2014, 13:33
There's something of the Spanish Inquisition about the 'Denier' tag.

It's not the Spanish Inquisition it brings to mind. The use of the word 'denier' is intended to connect it with the holocaust and anti-semitism. A pretty dirty trick and one that made me immediately suspicious of the climate change supporters' motives.