bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,170
- 47,372
- 2,180
You mean government employees who publish in pal reviewed journals.
The real issue of Global Warming is Communism v. Capitalism
- Thread starter Blackrook
- Start date
You mean government employees who publish in pal reviewed journals.
bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,170
- 47,372
- 2,180
Oh, but the accusation that the fossil fuel industry is funding a vast conspiracy to "deny" global warming is "sane" and has "reasonable evidence" to support it?
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
Yes, there is absolute proof that the fossil fuel industry has funded projects to deny that fact of global warming, and their culpubility in that warming. In fact, they are using the very people that the tobacco industry used to deny the connection between tobacco and all kinds of medical problems.
Climate change denial industry
Astroturfing began when Imperial Tobacco, Canada’s largest tobacco manufacturer, commissioned a secret study that weighed various strategies for combating the growing influence of nonsmoking groups like The Lung Association and the Nonsmokers Rights Association.
“Passive smoking [should be] the focal point,” the study suggests. “Of all the health issues surrounding smoking… the one that the tobacco industry has the most chance of winning [is to argue] that the evidence proclaimed by [anti-smoking groups] is flawed… It is highly desirable for us to control the focus of the debate.” Later, the study urges a comprehensive attack on “the credibility of the evidence presented to date,” and tells the company to hire several doctors and scientists who would be willing to take their side.
And that's exactly what they did.
Companies like Phillip Morris used their huge profits to create institutes and smokers-rights groups to promote pseudo-science and false research as the real thing, thereby confusing many people who don’t really understand how the scientific process works. The campaign convinced many nonsmokers that secondhand smoke was just another unfounded fear — a fear that could be equated to concerns over cell phones, pesticides and, believe it or not, global warming.
Ten years later, when study after study confirmed that global warming was real, and that it seemed likely to roll over us and lead to catastrophic warming, scientists sounded the alarm. The oil industry saw the way the wind was blowing. But rather than do the ethical thing, and join the fight to slow global warming, most companies took a page from the tobacco industry playbook.
The created research institutes and public policy centers — all very official sounding — that are paid to distort and confuse. They aren't trying to disprove global warming; they're trying to convince decent folk everywhere that the debate is still ongoing, and that the scientific community still isn't speaking with one voice.
In a nutshell, these groups are paid to lie in a very clever, media-savvy way.
Climate change denial industry
Astroturfing began when Imperial Tobacco, Canada’s largest tobacco manufacturer, commissioned a secret study that weighed various strategies for combating the growing influence of nonsmoking groups like The Lung Association and the Nonsmokers Rights Association.
“Passive smoking [should be] the focal point,” the study suggests. “Of all the health issues surrounding smoking… the one that the tobacco industry has the most chance of winning [is to argue] that the evidence proclaimed by [anti-smoking groups] is flawed… It is highly desirable for us to control the focus of the debate.” Later, the study urges a comprehensive attack on “the credibility of the evidence presented to date,” and tells the company to hire several doctors and scientists who would be willing to take their side.
And that's exactly what they did.
Companies like Phillip Morris used their huge profits to create institutes and smokers-rights groups to promote pseudo-science and false research as the real thing, thereby confusing many people who don’t really understand how the scientific process works. The campaign convinced many nonsmokers that secondhand smoke was just another unfounded fear — a fear that could be equated to concerns over cell phones, pesticides and, believe it or not, global warming.
Ten years later, when study after study confirmed that global warming was real, and that it seemed likely to roll over us and lead to catastrophic warming, scientists sounded the alarm. The oil industry saw the way the wind was blowing. But rather than do the ethical thing, and join the fight to slow global warming, most companies took a page from the tobacco industry playbook.
The created research institutes and public policy centers — all very official sounding — that are paid to distort and confuse. They aren't trying to disprove global warming; they're trying to convince decent folk everywhere that the debate is still ongoing, and that the scientific community still isn't speaking with one voice.
In a nutshell, these groups are paid to lie in a very clever, media-savvy way.
skookerasbil
Platinum Member
Green Industry Lobbyists Behind Scientific IPCC Claims The Global Warming Policy Forum GWPF
Green energy means work for lobbyists - Jeanne Cummings - POLITICO.com
Did Green Industry Lobby Influence IPCC Report The Global Warming Policy Forum GWPF
Former NASA Scientist Global Warming is Nonsense - Breitbart
I was sacked by David Cameron to appease the green blob says Paterson Politics The Guardian
Confidence In Climate Science Eroding Over Errors Green Influence
Green Lobby Weighs Political Realities of Energy Policy Finds Clean Energy Standard Isn t So Bad - NYTimes.com
The decline of the environmental lobby 8217 s political influence. Pointman s
Green energy means work for lobbyists - Jeanne Cummings - POLITICO.com
Did Green Industry Lobby Influence IPCC Report The Global Warming Policy Forum GWPF
Former NASA Scientist Global Warming is Nonsense - Breitbart
I was sacked by David Cameron to appease the green blob says Paterson Politics The Guardian
Confidence In Climate Science Eroding Over Errors Green Influence
Green Lobby Weighs Political Realities of Energy Policy Finds Clean Energy Standard Isn t So Bad - NYTimes.com
The decline of the environmental lobby 8217 s political influence. Pointman s
Last edited:
Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
Nothing like James Hansen and Michale Mann lying in front of congress while secretly having the cooling in the capitol turned off for the meeting... these dopes were paid by the government to sell the CAGW LIE..
skookerasbil
Platinum Member
Ooooops..........popped up a bunch of links that destroy the AGW philosophies above but forgot this key one.............
The Green Agenda
Anybody NOT all in on the religion just needs to spend about 30 minutes on this ^^ site and if they have half a brain, the dots get connected rather quickly.
The Green Agenda
Anybody NOT all in on the religion just needs to spend about 30 minutes on this ^^ site and if they have half a brain, the dots get connected rather quickly.
Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
mamooth
Diamond Member
Deniers are now like islamicists screaming "Allahu akhbar!". For them, the only thing that matters is demonstrating to the other cultists how much they hate the infidels. That's why we see them constantly repeating the same mantras at ever-higher volume.
They're not trying to convince outsiders. They've seen other cultists purged for insufficient purity, they don't want to be purged themselves, so they loudly demonstrate their loyalty.
They're not trying to convince outsiders. They've seen other cultists purged for insufficient purity, they don't want to be purged themselves, so they loudly demonstrate their loyalty.
elektra
Diamond Member
I wish you could hear yourself, you babble like a fool.
Yes.
http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
The funders of climate disinformation Campaign against Climate Change
ExxonMobil gave 1.5M to climate disinformation groups last year breaking its pledge to stop funding denial machine ThinkProgress
ExxonMobil - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Exxon Mobil - SourceWatch
Dark Money Funds Climate Change Denial Effort - Scientific American
Alfred Wegener Institute ExxonMobil s Disinformation Campaign
What You Should Know About Exxon Mobil 8217 s Latest Ad Campaign TIME.com
Unreliable Sources 2 How the Media Help the Kochs ExxonMobil Spread Climate Disinformation Elliott Negin
Unreliable Sources 3 How the Media Help the Kochs ExxonMobil Spread Climate Disinformation Elliott Negin
New Film Documents ExxonMobil Role in Climate Disinformation Campaign DeSmogBlog
Petition ExxonMobil Stop Funding the Disinformation Campaign Change.org
Last edited:
Yes.
http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
The funders of climate disinformation Campaign against Climate Change
ExxonMobil gave 1.5M to climate disinformation groups last year breaking its pledge to stop funding denial machine ThinkProgress
ExxonMobil - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Exxon Mobil - SourceWatch
Dark Money Funds Climate Change Denial Effort - Scientific American
Alfred Wegener Institute ExxonMobil s Disinformation Campaign
What You Should Know About Exxon Mobil 8217 s Latest Ad Campaign TIME.com
Unreliable Sources 2 How the Media Help the Kochs ExxonMobil Spread Climate Disinformation Elliott Negin
Unreliable Sources 3 How the Media Help the Kochs ExxonMobil Spread Climate Disinformation Elliott Negin
New Film Documents ExxonMobil Role in Climate Disinformation Campaign DeSmogBlog
Petition ExxonMobil Stop Funding the Disinformation Campaign Change.org
bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,170
- 47,372
- 2,180
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
The problem for the deniars, is that they have to change the subject to 'socialism' or 'communism'. They cannot argue that the world is not warming, and give any pretense of being in touch with reality. They can no longer argue that the means to achieve a carbon neutral economy are too expensive, as wind has more than achieved parity with conventional energy, and solar is on the verge of achieveing parity, with the price of the panels dropping every month.
You can clearly see the differance on this board. The people that are looking at what the scientists are finding, post those findings. The whack-o-doodles post links to people with no credentials, and less credibility.
You can clearly see the differance on this board. The people that are looking at what the scientists are finding, post those findings. The whack-o-doodles post links to people with no credentials, and less credibility.
And what might that be intended to convey? I think I've demonstrated that more evidence exists for Exxon/Mobil's disinformation campaign than for the entire denier case, stem to stern.
elektra
Diamond Member
The first link, simply states that Exxon has funded the other side of the argument. I thought part of Science was asking questions among peers, sharing information, discussing things?
But that is not what the Global Warming nuts Who Blame CO2, do, your "scientists" exclude and attack, demean, all that find fault with your emails and lost data and failed computer models.
Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
That would be because it is one..
Climate scientists have been looking at all sides of this issue for decades. 97 out of every 100 of them have come to the conclusion that AGW is valid. There is no more debate over the broad outlines. What you are talking about is precisely the disinformation campaign that Exxon Mobil and other fossil fuel industry powers are waging - a technique they learned from the tobacco industry and proponents of intelligent design: take advantage of the lack of hard proof in the natural sciences and the public's poor grasp of science to convince the voters that these points are still controversial; that no consensus actually exists.
And there are twelve more links to examine showing ExxonMobil to be involved in a disinformation campaign.
skookerasbil
Platinum Member
You know.......for some smart people in here who are AGW advocates, there is an amazing amount of naïve in them when it comes to the politics of this stuff..........as if it is a one sided affair or doesn't matter. EVERYTHING in the end comes down to politics, like it or not.
Of course there are special interests in the energy market but that is for all sides. The AGW crowd makes oout as if there are no special interests related to green energy as if it is born purely out of altruism and love of the environment. You really do have to have the political IQ of a small soap dish to think that!!!
The Green Agenda
Why do you think that green energy is still a joke in 2014?
It is because the politics of global warming are a disaster for the AGW contingent.
Of course there are special interests in the energy market but that is for all sides. The AGW crowd makes oout as if there are no special interests related to green energy as if it is born purely out of altruism and love of the environment. You really do have to have the political IQ of a small soap dish to think that!!!
The Green Agenda
Why do you think that green energy is still a joke in 2014?
It is because the politics of global warming are a disaster for the AGW contingent.
elektra
Diamond Member
Give us the name of the 97 for and 3 against.
Solar and Wind consume more oil, Solar and Wind demand more oil, Exxon and all the other companies make money cause it takes a lot more Oil to build and manufacture Solar and Wind. Your ideas are so shallow, so narrow.
Ignorance is the position of crick.
Similar threads
