Greenpeace Says Fossil Fuel Industry Misleads On Climate Science

Greenpeace Says Fossil Fuel Industry Misleads On Climate Science

So Greenpeace just conducted an undercover investigation into the Fossil Fuel industry's money chain in regards to funding Climate Change denial. Now many people who deny AGW talk about how there is all this money going to making scientists rich in order to push the narrative that AGW is real. Now when you call these people to task in actually producing the money train, they almost always fall short. Well NOW we are going to look at the opposite side of the debate's money trail (where the REAL conspiracy is). Let's deny some ignorance folks.

An undercover Greenpeace investigation released on Tuesday suggests that fossil fuel companies secretly funnel money into prominent scientists' pockets to manufacture doubt about mainstream climate change science.

Greenpeace UK took an unconventional approach to the research: Members of the environmentalist group posed as representatives of fake oil and coal companies and asked two climate change skeptics to write papers promoting the benefits of carbon dioxide and coal in developing countries. The two academics the group approached -- Frank Clemente of Pennsylvania State University and William Happer of Princeton University -- reportedly agreed to pen the reports and not to reveal their funding source.

Keep in mind this investigation is on top of THIS investigation that happened earlier this year:
Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher

But newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon’s work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests.

He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.

$1.2 million! What? You can't tell me that isn't a conflict of interest. That is pretty much the textbook definition of taking a bribe to push faulty science. Anyways, back to my first source. It has been noted over and over again that the tactics used to deny Climate science are literally the exact same tactics used by the tobacco companies to deny the link between smoking and cancer

This academics-for-hire tactic has "materially changed the debate about climate change,"said Jesse Coleman, a Greenpeace activist who participated in the probe. "You could say that one of the reasons we're facing such dire climate change risks is because these fossil fuel companies are funding climate change denial."

"It's the exact same playbook" tobacco companies once used to "convince people of something that is just not true," Coleman added.

For decades, tobacco corporations deceived consumers about the dangers of smoking by covertly funding contrarian research. Manufactured data, concealed conflicts of interest and misleading conclusions, as The Huffington Post has previously reported, are also evident in influential research on vaccination, organic food, secondhand smoke, lead paint and chemical flame retardants. But perhaps no environmental or public health issue is as high-stake as global warming.

In case anyone wants to doubt this claim, here is the link to the pdf the article provides to back up the previous paragraphs:
tobacco industry covered up link to cancer

He emphasized that while accepting money from industry to do research is not itself a breach of ethics, taking money from any source without transparency is "totally unacceptable."

Maybe so, but this is certainly more evidence than a climate change denier has ever put forward that the opposite is true of science that accepts AGW as real.

PS: I know people like to get hung up on my abbreviating Man-Made Climate Change to just Climate Change. So I don't have to repeat myself in the thread, when I say Climate Change, I really mean Man-Made Climate Change. I just don't feel like typing all of that.

Personally, I don't see how human kind cannot be effecting the speed at which climate change occurs. However, whomever really is in charge of the whole conspiracy about it occurring, or not occurring, is doing a tremendous job at making the entire subject confusing for both sides.

Even if you do deny man-made climate change, exactly what is so bad about being conservative with resources, aiming to be environmentally friendly, and reducing your ecological footprint? Obviously there is clear economic benefits (energy saving, less waste, so on and so forth), but what is so bad about just keeping global ecosystems as healthy as possible anyway?

a reply to: Ghost147

You know, I've yet to get a real answer to these concerns either.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Greenpeace are no longer out in the cold. They are practically pursuing the same goals as government and establishment now.

Greenpeace garner support from some very powerful and wealthy people indeed. A new economic strategy is being developed related to climate change. It is being used as an excuse the same way as terrorism is used as an excuse for certain political and economical objectives.

There will be lots more of this with both sides using dirty tactics. In the long term fossil fuel will be heavily penalised, a cost that will be paid handed down the line and the customers will pick up the tab.

I am more concerned that the POLLUTION word gets used more. Our pollution and destruction of our environment is frightening in terms of the consequences.

Last I checked, greenpeace was in the pocket of the food industry- which takes its queues from pharma.

If anyone is into documentaries, check out 'cowspiracy', and 'king corn' - they'll give you some perspective on these sorts of groups.

originally posted by: lordcomac
Last I checked, greenpeace was in the pocket of the food industry- which takes its queues from pharma.

last you checked? When was that and what sources did you use?

If anyone is into documentaries, check out 'cowspiracy', and 'king corn' - they'll give you some perspective on these sorts of groups.

So you got nothing to debunk the claims made in the OP. Just come in say that greenpeace is corrupt, provide no evidence of it, and that is good enough to discount the things presented in my OP huh? Nevermind that I also put forth evidence about a climate change denier accepting tons of money from the fossil fuel industry that had nothing to do with greenpeace or anything...

PS: I don't watch documentaries. Especially youtube documentaries. Talk about a way to appeal to your confirmation biases...

a reply to: Revolution9

So what does this all mean in relation to the OP? Do you think they are lying with this investigation or something?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

PS: I don't watch documentaries.

Makes sense... Wouldnt want your precious belief system challenged in any way..

But, youd watch them if they were peer reviewed, eh?

originally posted by: Tucket

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

PS: I don't watch documentaries.

Makes sense... Wouldnt want your precious belief system challenged in any way..

No... I don't watch them because any idiot with a video camera and video editing software can make one. Also because of the way the information is presented, it is hard to fact check everything being presented to you. They are a GREAT tool to confirm your biases though.

But, youd watch them if they were peer reviewed, eh?

I'd rather just read a peer reviewed paper.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Revolution9

So what does this all mean in relation to the OP? Do you think they are lying with this investigation or something?

No, I do not.

Like I said both sides are using dirty tactics.

Greenpeace did a typical FBI sting operation. They manufactured the crime to make a point = dirty tactics.

The ones who accepted payment for their papers = dirty tactics.

Is that clear to you now. Of course my post relates to the OP. Or is it that I have to agree with you to comment?

I am clearly saying to you that the climate change issue is politically motivated with a whole range of future world wide legislation, penalisation of industry, consumer expense, etc. It is a huge affair. It will have huge implications for industry and the consumer on a world scale.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

An undercover Greenpeace investigation released on Tuesday suggests that fossil fuel companies secretly funnel money into prominent scientists' pockets to manufacture doubt about mainstream climate change science.

All is understandable here. The article speaks of "evil" scientists. The ones disputing the AGW are naturally evil. The ones supporting it...are the good guys...and would never never ever be tempted to support an agenda for financial gain/survival.

I wonder if the "good" side is also getting funding...from somewhere ? Probably not...because if you're good...God gives you money for free.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'd rather just read a peer reviewed paper.

That is too bad as a lot of new ideas are found outside peer review . In fact peer review is a relativity new concept as compared to the history of science . If it (peer review) is the determing factor of how science can go forward to consensus then it has become something other then what science is supposed to be about . If Metaphysics is a fact and is keep out of the scientific discussion then science is limiting itself to a dogma . by consensus .

a reply to: Revolution9

I mean I agree with that, but I really don't find these tactics dirty. I find them illuminating and necessary since it shows that the opposite of the rhetoric used against climate science is true. Plus the deniers started it with all the ridiculous and unfounded claims of scientific corruption around the climate science.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: Krazysh0t

An undercover Greenpeace investigation released on Tuesday suggests that fossil fuel companies secretly funnel money into prominent scientists' pockets to manufacture doubt about mainstream climate change science.

All is understandable here. The article speaks of "evil" scientists. The ones disputing the AGW are naturally evil. The ones supporting it...are the good guys...and would never never ever be tempted to support an agenda for financial gain/survival.

I wonder if the "good" side is also getting funding...from somewhere ? Probably not...because if you're good...God gives you money for free.

Got any sources for these allegations? From the OP:

Now many people who deny AGW talk about how there is all this money going to making scientists rich in order to push the narrative that AGW is real. Now when you call these people to task in actually producing the money train, they almost always fall short.

Care to prove me wrong and actually produce actual evidence that scientists are accepting bribes to push climate change science? Just saying it is possible isn't evidence that it is happening.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'd rather just read a peer reviewed paper.

That is too bad as a lot of new ideas are found outside peer review .

Well if they are credible then they'll withstand peer review. That's how it works. If an idea resists peer review I automatically label it dubious. If an idea is credible and true it should be able to withstand criticalness and skepticism.

In fact peer review is a relativity new concept as compared to the history of science . If it (peer review) is the determing factor of how science can go forward to consensus then it has become something other then what science is supposed to be about . If Metaphysics is a fact and is keep out of the scientific discussion then science is limiting itself to a dogma . by consensus .

Ah I see, you are another one of those people mad at peer review because it poopooed one of your dubious ideas that you believe.

Of course none of this has to do with the information I've presented in the OP about the fossil fuel industry buying off scientists to push the narrative that AGW is false.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Care to prove me wrong and actually produce actual evidence that scientists are accepting bribes to push climate change science? Just saying it is possible isn't evidence that it is happening.

it's not called a bribe man...it's called lobbying. I'm sure you know about it. Apparently everybody is doing it. Even the same good AGW people are getting lobbied. No additional proof of such claim is really necessary. It's as clear as the fact that sun will come up tomorrow.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Care to prove me wrong and actually produce actual evidence that scientists are accepting bribes to push climate change science? Just saying it is possible isn't evidence that it is happening.

it's not called a bribe man...it's called lobbying. I'm sure you know about it. Apparently everybody is doing it. Even the same good AGW people are getting lobbied. No additional proof of such claim is really necessary. It's as clear as the fact that sun will come up tomorrow.

Lobby money goes to politicians not scientists, try again.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

No po po here ...If a journal decides to post a paper will it get into the journal .So the journals are actually a good place to gate keep . If you want to look in a inconvenient place and the gate keepers are the last place you have then the story never gets told . People of journals were fired for allowing papers to be produced not because the papers didn't have something legitimate to say but because it was not part of the consensus narrative being pushed on the masses .

Even TED censored Rupert Sheldrake I wonder if any journals actually looked at his papers ?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I think I can stretch the definition a bit..

Lobbying (also lobby) is the act of attempting to influence decisions made by officials in a government, most often legislators or members of regulatory agencies.

Since the regulations are being made/prepared based on the reports by these good people...I guess we can call them.."regulatory" to an extent...and therefore are within a possibility of a lobbying attempt.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Here is the answer to your question!

Nothing is wrong with conservation. So lets conserve the land from being mined for earth metals to build turbines. Lets just operate the gas co-generation plant that is currently build and operates continuously to generate the exact same power as the turbines only generate sometimes. It would be saving electricity as well and we wouldn't have to give it away.

Lets get rid of biofuels so that the deforestion of Indonesia and Malasia to create palm oil plantations can be halted. Lets preserve agricultural land to growing food - not energy.

Lets use the money save to clean plastics out of the ocean.

Tired of Control Freaks