Conservative Funders of Climate Denial are Spending Millions

From Desmog:

Conservati ve funders of climate denial are quietly spending millions to generate partisan journalism.

This explains why despite the overwhelming consensus of the experts who agree that we are causing climate change, that there is so much denial in the US, especially in forums like this. Some of the most active deniers on here and other forums may be getting paid to cast doubt on what the science is telling us.

If the general public was aware of the consequences of our fossil fuel addiction, then we would collectively demand alternative energy solutions(at least here in the USA). Creating doubt, buying off politicians is keeping their profits up at the expense of the planet.

both sides are spending millions to push their agenda...

Its not just one side or the other... most likely the truth is somewhere between the two sides.

What is the proper tax contribution for a STATIC weather pattern?

We are no more solely responsible for climate change than we are to blame for the Ice Age....or causing it to thaw. Did we cause the Mesozoic? That was the hottest period in Earth's history. Did we destroy all the jungles in the Jurassic? We may be contributing a small amount, but the Earth has been going through heating and cooling cycles for billions of years. To think we are solely to blame for this is nothing but fear mongering for profit.

I bet they spend more on climate change than they do cleaning up their own pollution.

Out of sight, out of mind.

a reply to: jrod

Once Hilary is in office, these clowns will be sued into oblivion. I think there's already been a lawsuit filed against Exxon.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Middleground is a fallacy of logic. Rarely does the truth fall somewhere in the middle of two extremes.

I am going to side with what the data and observations are telling us, NOT what think tanks who are concerned about the bottom line in the oil trade are telling us.

a reply to: jrod

So you think extremes usually are the truth..

I think most people on the planet would argue that point...

as many have said in many Climate change threads before... in the 70's it was global cooling... in the '80s it was a hole in the ozone that was going to kill us... (we did something about that one because it was fixable), then with Gore it was we have 20 years or were all going to die... So my entire life I have heard if we dont fix this now we are all going to die.

I dont doubt that we have an effect, you cant bulldoze so much forest land and slap down concrete and steel and not influence things... but I doubt that we are 95%+ of the problem.

a reply to: jrod

I consider any money spent to stop the NWO climate agenda money well spent.

It's money spent on self-defense.

If climate change was not true why would big corporations need to spend millions to deny it.
Pretty simple to see.

a reply to: jrod

I love how you wildly accuse deniers of being paid shills... Do you have proof of this? Is there even a story out lately to corroborate this accusation?

Or are you just trying to balance the field as it has been proven the left have paid shills.

a reply to: jrod

If the general public was aware of the consequences of our fossil fuel addiction, then we would collectively demand alternative energy solutions(at least here in the USA).

Most people still remember the fake "oil crisis" of the 70's. That didn't spur people on for better alternatives, why should it now?

Most people are also aware of the dangers of guns and motor vehicles and they're not calling for the banning of these either.

Creating doubt, buying off politicians is keeping their profits up at the expense of the planet.

A whole new industry of "climate change" mitigation has spawned sponging off the tax payer. Climate change calculations can hardly be called a science when the so called computer modelling is still in its infancy. The fact that they have been caught fearmongering and lying shows what shaky ground they stand on. Why should they scream and call for it to be a crime to question the science if it stood on its merits?

The often called solution to coal fired power generation has been Nuclear. No-one is talking about the irreversible damage done by Fukushima - the silence is deafening. We will be taxed to death in the name of modifying our behaviour but just like the Global financial crisis the crooks will be the largest recipients of so called "new industries" benefiting from carbon credits.

Its a Ponzi scheme!

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
If climate change was not true why would big corporations need to spend millions to deny it.
Pretty simple to see.

Pretty simplistic shallow reasoning right there. They would need to because the other agenda is spending millions to get it pushed through which in the long run will only cost more taxes for some imagined and created cause. It is called Defense and that requires action.

a reply to: jrod

In other news, all the planets in the solar system around us are also warming up:

Entire solar system is heating up! Scientists blame solar warming

www.space.news...

a reply to: Irishhaf

So you think extremes usually are the truth..

In science the outcome can only be in binary. On or off. Yes or no.It is or it isnt. No"extremes" . That terminology is politicians talking.

a reply to: dukeofjive696969

If climate change was not true why would big corporations need to spend millions to deny it.

If climate change were true why would they need laws to silence dissent?


dailysignal.com...

n news that should shock and anger Americans, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that not only has she discussed internally the possibility of pursuing civil actions against so-called “climate change deniers,” but she has “referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action.” Lynch was responding to a question from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., who urged Lynch to prosecute those who “pretend that the science of carbon emissions’ dangers is unsettled,” particularly those in the “fossil fuel industry” who supposedly have constructed a “climate denial apparatus.”

Lynch is apparently following in the footsteps of California Attorney General Kamala Harris and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, both of whom have opened up investigations of ExxonMobil for allegedly lying to the public and their shareholders about climate change.None of the public officials involved in this abuse of the prosecutorial power of the government recognizes the outrageousness of what they are doing

or are urging the FBI and the Justice Department to do. They want to investigate and prosecute corporations and individuals for their opinions on an unproven scientific theory, for which there is not a consensus, despite inaccurate claims to the contrary.

originally posted by: intrptr
I bet they spend more on climate change than they do cleaning up their own pollution.

Out of sight, out of mind.

Usually I enjoy a good example of irony, but not this one. (It's become a conditioned response here on ATS... I'm already trying to remember where to go for sourcing. )

Along with aluminum, barium, lithium and a slew of other ingredients, at least one of the patents regarding geoengineering using the upper atmosphere uses fly ash as a bonding agent. A primary source of fly ash is coal fired power plants.

To assure that I'm still on topic:
For my part, I'd like to see someone find a way to calculate how much of other people's money those on the other side of this issue are spending. When you think or it, it's a pretty sweet strategy. Meanwhile they still get to jet around the world participating in "forums and councils" while staying in air-conditioned luxury suites and dining on fine cuisine!

originally posted by: Irishhaf
both sides are spending millions to push their agenda...

Its not just one side or the other... most likely the truth is somewhere between the two sides.

I'm with you on this. The truth is likely in the middle somewhere between nothing is going on and the world will end if we don't create a new carbon tax.

originally posted by: jrod
From Desmog:

Conservati ve funders of climate denial are quietly spending millions to generate partisan journalism.

This explains why despite the overwhelming consensus of the experts who agree that we are causing climate change, that there is so much denial in the US, especially in forums like this. Some of the most active deniers on here and other forums may be getting paid to cast doubt on what the science is telling us.

If the general public was aware of the consequences of our fossil fuel addiction, then we would collectively demand alternative energy solutions(at least here in the USA). Creating doubt, buying off politicians is keeping their profits up at the expense of the planet.

Sorry bud you blew it with "forums like this". You really think "experts" care about some niche forums on the internet? Also there is NOT overwhelming evidence it is caused by man. There is over whelming evidence it is happening, just not so much manmade (not to say we do not have an impact that is currently unmeasurable). The Earth has had hot and cold cycles since it was formed.

Call me nutz...

I think the TRUTH is somewhere mixed in the middle...

Each side as a TINY bit of the truth...

Each side has an [agenda] ...

It comes down to this, friends:

Who's flavor do YOU want to live with...?