How Fossil Fuel Money Made Climate Change Denial the Word of God

originally posted by: jrod
splinternews.com...

Conservative groups, funded by fossil fuel magnates, spend approximately one billion dollars every year interfering with public understanding of what is actually happening to our world.

This a great read about how climate change denial has spread to the Evangelical crowd and now to the White House.

While this can be a heated topic here on ATS and this thread will likely be full of the typical rhetoric, I think a lot can be learned from what this article has to offer. The fossil fuel interests are spending 1 billion a year to mislead the public about the reality of of human caused climate change and other man made environmental problems.

Help me out, here.

I read about 1/3 of the article before my eyes started to glaze over from reading the names of religious organizations that I've never heard of who are supposed to represent large numbers of "evangelical Christians."

I skimmed the next third of the article looking for names like Exxon, British Petroleum, or some other large fossil fuel company. None popped out to me.

The sort of information I'm looking for is a statement along the lines of, "The CEO of Exxon strokes a check for XX million dollars annually to the leadership of the Methodist Church to have their pastors preach to their congregations that God wants them to deny climate change." Something like that.

What are the names of these fossil fuel magnates?

Exactly how much are they paying and who are they paying it to? As I said, I didn't recognize any of the religious organizations in the article. Are they legitimate, or just a group of people giving themselves a name? What major Christian denominations do they represent? Catholics? Baptists? Mormons?

Exactly what effect does these millions of dollars have on rank and file congregation members? I remember when I was going to church. At the beginning of every sermon was a Bible verse, then the pastor would explain what God said or what He meant. I don't recall any sermon where the pastor tried to tell us what God wanted us to think or do; only what God said. But then, my pastor was a great man, and exceptional human being. Maybe other religious leaders are different. Still, I can't imagine any priest, minister, pastor, or whatever preaching a sermon entitled, "God wants you to deny climate change." So who is being influenced by all this money?

Understand, now, I'm just being a little lazy. After the first third of this article, I couldn't focus enough attention on it to answer the questions I'm asking. They really should put that sort of info near the top of the article.

Fossil Fuel Money Made Climate Change Denial

actually, it’s the opposite. Oil companies have put a huge amount of money into NGO’s and various groups pushing the anthropogenic CO2 based catastrophic warming narrative , the Rothschilds and Rockefellers are the ones hyping the need for carbon regulation and the impending doom of climate change, they’re not just “oil companies”...you do the math.

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

You have to read the entire article. There are Evangelicals who care about the environment, especially with the younger generation.

a reply to: AttitudeProblem

actually, it’s the opposite. Oil companies have put a huge amount of money into NGO’s and various groups pushing the anthropogenic CO2 based catastrophic warming narrative , the Rothschilds and Rockefellers are the ones hyping the need for carbon regulation and the impending doom of climate change, they’re not just “oil companies”...you do the math.

It is also what I think. Take for example the CO2 sequestration, they use money from warmist scam to finance injection of CO2 into non-profitable oil well. CO2 injection help recover normally non recoverable oil thus effectively making oil extraction more profitable.

a reply to: jrod

I have no doubt that many evangelicals care about the environment. As I said, I couldn't get through the entire article. I was hoping you could point out the parts in the article that the thread title is based on. The Who is paying Who, the how much, and the how it makes people think climate change denial is the Word of God.

That way I can go back to the article and read the meat of it without trying to remember a list of organizations I've never heard of.

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

Probably should have done that on page 1. There is a lot to pick from, almost too much. Scroll to the end of the article for more names and such.

Here you go:

The NAE did eventually endorse climate action in 2015. But it was too late. By that time, a corps of right-wing Christians, funded by fossil-fuel interests, had hijacked the public and political machinery of the evangelical movement. They are now in the White House, where the anti-environmental agenda is dominated by Christian fundamentalists like EPA Commissioner Scott Pruitt while the more moderate views of former ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson are ignored. This is the story of how they did it.

At a town hall in Michigan last May, Republican Rep. Tim Walberg assured his constituents that, while the climate may be changing, they don’t need to be concerned. “As a Christian, I believe that there is a creator in God who is much bigger than us,” he told them. “And I’m confident that, if there’s a real problem, He can take care of it.”


This idea—that whatever happens in God’s creation happens with His blessing—has deep roots in the American evangelical community, especially among the elite fundamentalists who walk the halls of power in Washington, D.C. For years, an evangelical minister named Ralph Drollinger has held weekly Bible studies for members of Congress, preaching that social welfare programs are un-Christian and agitating for military action against Iran. (In December 2015, he expressed his desire to shape Donald Trump into a benevolent, Christian dictator.) Drollinger also teaches that climate change caused by humans is impossible in light of God’s covenant with Noah after the Flood: “To think that man can alter the earth’s ecosystem—when God remains omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent in the current affairs of mankind—is to more than subtly espouse an ultra-hubristic, secular worldview relative to the supremacy and importance of man,” he wrote recently.

a reply to: jrod

More...

Conservative groups, funded by fossil fuel magnates, spend approximately one billion dollars every year interfering with public understanding of what is actually happening to our world. Most of that money—most of the fraction of it that can be tracked, anyway—goes to think tanks that produce policy papers and legislative proposals favorable to donors’ interests, super PACs that support politicians friendly to industry or oppose those who are not, or mercenary lobbyists and consultants, in some instances employing the same people who fought to suppress the science on smoking. In terms of impact, however, few investments can rival the return that the conservative donor class has gotten from the small cohort of evangelical theologians and scholars whose work has provided scriptural justifications for apocalyptic geopolitics and economic rapaciousness.

...

The pull of fossil-fuel interests and the religious right is so strong that even conservative politicians who privately believe climate change is caused by humans have kept that view secret. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island, has said that he knows of at least a dozen Republicans in the Senate who accept climate science and want to take action, but feel they can’t do so for fear of the political repercussions—despite the fact that recent polling shows a majority of Republican voters believe that the United States “should play a leading role” on climate action. Half a dozen politically connected evangelical Christians who are active on Capitol Hill backed up Whitehouse’s claim to Splinter, saying they have either first- or second-hand experience with politicians who admit in private that they accept climate science even as they oppose regulations and reforms in public.

a reply to: jrod

Hopefully not too much copy and paste...this was a long article so Im just trying to find good excerpts because I doubt most will read the entire piece.

The most prominent climate hardliner in the U.S. Congress is Sen. Jim Inhofe. “Senator Inhofe will take an act of God to be changed,” Rev. Hescox said with a laugh when I asked whether the Oklahoma politician would ever see the light. “That one’s in God’s hands, not mine.” In 2012, while promoting his book The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future, Inhofe told a Christian radio program, “God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.”

Former Inhofe staffers and aides are flooding through leadership positions at the EPA, now led by Pruitt. About a month after Donald Trump took office, Drollinger began leading a weekly Bible study for members of the president’s cabinet. “It’s the best Bible study that I’ve ever taught in my life,” he told CBN News in a recent interview. “They are so teachable; they’re so noble; they’re so learned.”

Those billions are paying off. Not only have the people who funded Cornwall successfully stopped the government from pursuing policies that might make the lives of people who are living with the consequences of climate change a little bit better, but under the Trump administration their lackeys are actively working to dismantle what little progress has been made. When Drollinger teaches that God’s covenant with Noah means that the consequences of climate change not only will not but in fact cannot be as devastating as scientists believe, he echoes a lengthy essay published by the Cornwall Alliance in 2009 that lays out the same argument. Typical of the organization’s style, it appears to the casual observer like any policy paper drawn up at one of D.C.’s many think tanks and nonprofits; in reality, the document blends quotations from scripture with pseudo-scientific data—citing, for example, the Mercer-funded Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. During Pruitt’s confirmation hearing, Republican Sen. John Barrasso favorably cited Beisner and the Cornwall Alliance’s support for the Oklahoma attorney general.

edit on 11-8-2017 by jrod because: Y

a reply to: jrod

For interests sake

Please tell us how much is being spent by NGO's, the UN and liberals to convince us that humans are a "plague" on the earth and we are all going to die?

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

lol. Nice question. I am also interested in that answer.

a reply to: jrod

I appreciate it. Thank you.

But I hope you can see where I'm not seeing a lot of "meat" in this story so far.

The NAE did eventually endorse climate action in 2015. But it was too late. By that time, a corps of right-wing Christians, funded by fossil-fuel interests, had hijacked the public and political machinery of the evangelical movement. They are now in the White House, where the anti-environmental agenda is dominated by Christian fundamentalists like EPA Commissioner Scott Pruitt while the more moderate views of former ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson are ignored.

Exactly who is this "corps of right-wing Christians." Who are the "fossil fuel interests" giving them money? I don't know if Scott Pruitt is a fundamentalist Christian, but for the sake of argument I will accept that he is. So who is giving him money and how much? Certainly not the former CEO of ExxonMobile.

At a town hall in Michigan last May, Republican Rep. Tim Walberg assured his constituents that, while the climate may be changing, they don’t need to be concerned. “As a Christian, I believe that there is a creator in God who is much bigger than us,” he told them. “And I’m confident that, if there’s a real problem, He can take care of it.”

That just sounds like standard Christian fare to me. "God has a plan, and all happens according to God's will." That sort of thing. You don't have to pay a Christian to say things like that. It's kind of a reflex.

For years, an evangelical minister named Ralph Drollinger has held weekly Bible studies for members of Congress, preaching that social welfare programs are un-Christian and agitating for military action against Iran.

OK, which members of Congress are attending Minister Ralph's weekly Bible studies? I have a hard time believing any members of Congress are attending weekly bible study meetings. It would cut in to their re-election fundraising time. Give me some names, here. Also, is Minister Ralph getting a check from the "fossil fuel interests?"

Am I expecting too much from this article?

Conservative groups, funded by fossil fuel magnates

goes to think tanks that produce policy papers and legislative proposals favorable to donors’ interests, super PACs that support politicians friendly to industry or oppose those who are not, or mercenary lobbyists and consultants, in some instances employing the same people who fought to suppress the science on smoking.

the conservative donor class

the small cohort of evangelical theologians and scholars

How about some names? What groups? What fossil fuel magnates? Who are these think tanks and what influence do they have? I see a lot of generic titles, not a lot of John Hancocks.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island, has said that he knows of at least a dozen Republicans in the Senate who accept climate science and want to take action, but feel they can’t do so for fear of the political repercussions

If he knows at least a dozen, how about a couple of names.

---------

I'm not faulting you, Jrod. I just think this article is pretty poorly written. A lot of insinuation and allegations, but not a lot of hard facts to back it up. If someone is going to say that the fossil fuel industry is trying to influence the climate control debate, fine, I can believe that. But give me some hard facts. Name the persons shelling out this money and the recipients. Show me the bank transactions or cancelled checks. Explain to me how this money is used to influence large groups of people that never see the money.

I don't know. It's late, I'm tired. Maybe this weekend I can sit down first thing in the morning with a pot of coffee and try to read the article again and see if there is any meat to it.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: jrod

For interests sake

Please tell us how much is being spent by NGO's, the UN and liberals to convince us that humans are a "plague" on the earth and we are all going to die?

Sure, just as soon as you show us where the UN describes humans as 'a plague on the earth' and that we are 'all going to die'.

For me, it wasn't the fossil fuel industry that uncovered the climate change hoax. It was the failed predictions and lies about "97% of scientists agree". If the data was compelling then no lies would be needed and the predictions would not be so far off.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: jrod

Except all the falsifying of data and the fact that the earth has cooled and heated before the industrial revolution.

But let's ignore history and pay a tax to make it all better. Al Gore is growing very wealthy off this brand of scare tactics.

Also, the OP title mentions 'climate change deniers'.
Very few people deny that the Earth's climate changes.

Quite a few question AGW, which understandable, for the reasons that you listed.

originally posted by: infolurker
Here is your solution: (but the right people don't get rich of the rest of us)

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That's only a possible solution if you buy into the theory that CO2--even at increased levels--is a net negative for the planet.

I remain unconvinced of that issue for a number of reasons.

Now, I'm not saying that burying plant waste isn't a good idea--it would do great things for the soil that it directly affects, but it's not going to "save" the planet.

a reply to: butcherguy

This topic, climate change denial refers to those who refuse to accept man's role in it. This is widely accepted, you are just trying to grasp straws to denounce the article.

Between the rising CO2 and CH4 levels, deforestation, topagraphy changes via diverting rivers, building dams, ect..one has to be ignorant to proclaim our species is not impacting the overal climate on this planet.

As far as AGW, the evidence is out there from the number of record highs vs record lows, revord setting hurricane seasons, warm water fish migration, ocean heat content levels, ect.

The problem is so many ignore the evidence, scream tax scam, reference Al Gore, and among a few other standardized fall back arguments proclaim the climate changed in the past therefore it must be natural and not caused by humans.

It is sad that so many on ATS embrace ignorance over evidence.

I'm waiting for the climate change crowd to get off the grid and start using horse carriages and live like the Amish, then maybe we'll believe that crap...so far it's a "do as I say not as I do"

a reply to: jrod

The fossil fuel interests are spending 1 billion a year to mislead the public about the reality of of human caused climate change and other man made environmental problems.

While obviously that has a lot todo with it. The bigger issue that nobody is talking about is the lack of faith the people have towards gov't and scientist sponsored by corporate America.

Out govt, scientific facilities, and school systems are riddled with conflict of interest. You can't be upset when people don't believe anything they are told and take the lazy way out.

They don't have the leisure time or education to go over all the data themselves and are constantly being lied from all sides. Ofcourse they are going to go with their gut feelings and bias due to frustration and mistrust over decades.

So you want people to believe in govt then govt has to earn that trust again and people have to get their heads out of their arse and concentrate on conflict of interest with politicians.

1. Congregational term limits

2. campaign financing reform.

3. Lobbying reform

4. doing away with super-pacs

5. Revolving door between gov't and private sector

6. Transparency

You really want to fix Climate Change you must address the following things first. Eitherwise you will only end up with a few people making money and not fixing anything as long as the decision makers have conflict of interest.

I've heard a lot of arguments claiming to support Global Warming.

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas... OK, technically it is. My argument on that is more quantitative than qualitative, and I know most people have this phobia about numbers.

The seal levels are rising... No, but there is a lot of land subsidence, probably due to overpopulation on poor soils. I can see where people would be concerned, even if I don't agree.

The Arctic is melting... yes, yes it is. No argument there, I just haven't been able to tie it to carbon dioxide levels.

... the list is almost endless...

But the single most impotent argument I have ever heard is that "the deniers are paying money to change opinion!" Of course they are! So are the globalists who want this silly Cap & Trade Scam thing. Actually, the globalists are paying much more! How much propaganda was distributed about the Paris Accord? It wasn't free. How much airtime went to promoting the Paris Accord? Anyone know how expensive air time is, especially primetime news channel airtime? How many millions were spent on travel and accommodations and security to get leaders to and from those talks? 100 BILLION was slated to be spent on them, just to do... well, whatever they had to do to get rid of that much money, I guess. I never have figured out the actual purpose supposedly behind that price tag.

What is the yearly operating budget of the IPCC?

What is the yearly funding for the environmental section of various collages promoting Global Warming?

How much does the EPA spend annually studying methods to reduce carbon dioxide?

I mean, seriously... this is every bit as bad as Al Gore demanding I cut my power bills, when he uses more power in his home in a day than I do in six months. And trust you me, reaching the level of hypocrisy exhibited by Tennessee's very own human version of a tornado is NOT something to take pride in!

Sheesh...

TheRedneck

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: seasonal
Instead of ... falsely proclaiming the data is rigged, why not address the science?

The problem with your threads and comments on climate change is that you fail to accept that addressing manipulated data IS addressing the "science" behind the AGW theory. The fact that you simply don't like that it's brought up does not mean that it's not worthy discussion.

CO2 levels are rising, over 400ppm. This is a direct result of humans burning fossil fuels. This is over a 40% increase since pre industrial times.

No, it's a presumed result of burning fossil fuels--correlation does not equal causation, and just because we have a handful of decades where accurate global measurements have been taken does not mean that burning fossil fuels is the only possible or plausible answer to the observed changes. Like I have said before, a true scientific understanding of the catalysts and mechanisms that change and drive the climate (not the weather) are still out of our current grasp. Hell, I don't even really see it on the horizon at the moment, but maybe in my lifetime we'll get it figured out.

I doubt it, though, and so both sides--AGW theory proponents and actual deniers--will continue to manipulate things that are not fully understood at the time in order to bolster their claims. And, since we have so much unwillful ignorance surrounding the topic, people are relatively forced to pick a side because it's a very politicized issue in a very politicized environment, and god forbid anyone take a moment, employ critical thinking, and realize that skepticism to most definitive claims (like the quote in your OP, which pretends the AGW side is 100% correct) is the best scientific approach at this moment in time.

The fact that most AGW proponents lump skeptics in with deniers is very telling in relation to the level of critical thinking employed by many of them.

Are you going to deny a)CO2 rising, b)Fossil fuel emissions are the cause, c)CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, or d)continue to scream tax scam and Al Gore is a tool?

Can I answer from my point of view? (Yes, of course you can.) Thanks:

A. I've personally never denied that CO2 is rising, but at the same time, there is evidence from the Vostok ice core samples and other studies that shows that sharp rises in CO2, like we have seen relatively recently, have occurred innumerable times in the past, claiming that burned fossil fuels are the only possible cause is...well, it's ignorant.

B. Please see the last part of (A) above. They may be a contributing factor, but to call it out as "the cause"--implying that there are no other factors--is absolutely terrible opinion loosely veiled as science.

C. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but at right around 0.04% of the atmospheric makeup of gasses, I'm will certainly tell you that it's not near the alarmist concern that you and other AGW proponents pretend that it is. And I stand by my (based on scientific research, too) assertion that elevated CO2 levels in the atmosphere is not necessarily a bad thing, and certainly is not the dire situation that you and others color it to be.

D. Al Gore brought this asininity into the mainstream and was basically the one who caused the illogical, emotion-driven panic that we now see permeating some sectors of the political spectrum and other individuals. The fact remains that a major "solution" that is backed with so much vigor by Gore is the cap-and-trade model of taxing industries for producing CO2--that same CO2 in the atmosphere that give trees their mass (the same trees that convert that Carbon from the CO2 into mass and expel out the Oxygen that we so covet as a species) is considered a pollutant by these people. So, yes, discussing Al Gore and cap-and-trade propositions against CO2 is pertinent in this discussion, even if you are tired of hearing about it.

Just for fun (and it directly addresses the claim in your quote):

And just for more fun (another Stossel video):

From the second video:

Their belief in global warming is very wide, but their understanding is very shallow. ... but they need to know why--that's why we encourage critical thinking--people need to know why they believe as they believe. And if there's one thing that people understand after they see this movie is there is no consensus on global warming.

I have found this to be true for the vast, vast majority of the crowd who believes in the AGW theory--they understand very little (even about that which we do have a scientific understanding of) and they assume a consensus just because they're told that there is one. This is the activity of sheeple (I hate that word), not an intelligent society.