Billion-dollar climate denial network exposed

page: 1
32
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+15 more 
posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Well, there you have it. I have always suspected this and now here is the proof.

I do believe that there is a core group of individuals that manipulate the information we receive on a vast amount of issues. Truly, there IS a conspiracy against US!

Another thing that I have been paying attention to recently is that even "alternative" news sites regurgitate the news "de jour". It used to be you could find in depth coverage on issues not covered or carried by the MSM. It now seems that even those sources have somehow been swallowed up.


An extensive study into the financial networks that support groups denying the science behind climate change and opposing political action has found a vast, secretive web of think tanks and industry associations, bankrolled by conservative billionaires.

"I call it the climate-change counter movement," study author Robert Brulle, who published his results in the journal Climatic Change, told the Guardian. "It is not just a couple of rogue individuals doing this. This is a large-scale political effort."

His work, which is focused on the United States, shows how a network of 91 think tanks and industry groups are primarily responsible for conservative opposition to climate policy. Almost 80 percent of these groups are registered as charitable organizations for tax purposes, and collectively received more than seven billion dollars between 2003 and 2010.

Among those named as key nodes of the network were the American Enterprise Institute, which claims to have no institutional position on climate change, and the Heritage Foundation, which campaigns on a number of issues.

Source



+50 more 
posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Sorry but why are Scientists opposed to current climate change models treated as criminals?
You make it sound like a pedo ring thats been busted.

Sorry but healthy debate in sceince is vital. As soon as 100% of reserachers are forced to go along with a single view point and and diviation punnshied you dont get sceince anymore just ridgid thinking with little chance to correct any wrong thinking even if small. Its no diffrent to 1000 years ago of catholics burning people at stakes for holding diffrent view points, as soon as science becomes rigid and inflexable you get the same thing.
edit on 23-12-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)


+15 more 
posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


Read the article. This isn't about scientists have a differing opinion, it's about being bought and paid for shills of the corporatocracy.

There isn't one definitive consensus on climate change. The only stable consensus is that greenhouse gas emissions are altering the climate. From that general consensus, much variation exists.


+4 more 
posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 11:43 AM
link   

GrantedBail
Well, there you have it. I have always suspected this and now here is the proof.

I do believe that there is a core group of individuals that manipulate the information we receive on a vast amount of issues. Truly, there IS a conspiracy against US!

Another thing that I have been paying attention to recently is that even "alternative" news sites regurgitate the news "de jour". It used to be you could find in depth coverage on issues not covered or carried by the MSM. It now seems that even those sources have somehow been swallowed up.


An extensive study into the financial networks that support groups denying the science behind climate change and opposing political action has found a vast, secretive web of think tanks and industry associations, bankrolled by conservative billionaires.

"I call it the climate-change counter movement," study author Robert Brulle, who published his results in the journal Climatic Change, told the Guardian. "It is not just a couple of rogue individuals doing this. This is a large-scale political effort."

His work, which is focused on the United States, shows how a network of 91 think tanks and industry groups are primarily responsible for conservative opposition to climate policy. Almost 80 percent of these groups are registered as charitable organizations for tax purposes, and collectively received more than seven billion dollars between 2003 and 2010.

Among those named as key nodes of the network were the American Enterprise Institute, which claims to have no institutional position on climate change, and the Heritage Foundation, which campaigns on a number of issues.

Source
What's new here? There are two sides to the coin and both have their agenda. Neither are pure as snow. Dollars flow to both sides and it influences their positions.


+19 more 
posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 11:46 AM
link   
How about the fact that those for and against set up non-profit organizations to fund their side of the debate. Soros comes to mind on a number of issues.

The Climate change group has been found falsifying (LYING) about their data and it's treated as an anomaly, yet you find some story about conservative non-profits paying the climate change debunkers to be a major conspiracy?

Al Gore's, Inconvenient Truth, was found to be full of hyperbole and lies. Images of polar bears on pieces of ice floating were shown to be sensational and they are actually doing quite well as a species, ice caps are growing, and oh yeh, what about all the temperature collecting equipment put on tarmacs, near hot areas on purpose to boost the figures? For years we have been told it's a proven fact of man made global warming and anyone questioning it was ignorant Neanderthal. Funny, thousands of real weather scientists deny any evidence of the earth getting hotter over the past decade or man made global warming.

I can't fund these stories debunking this climate hype and I am glad someone is.



posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by webedoomed
 


I think that the phenomena of climate change suffers first by the initial label it was given (global warming), even if it rightly translates to what is occurring, the rise of medium temperatures. The common man will not grasp in they daily lives the global effect and large time periods occurrences will escape perception, but I bet that any adult with more than 40 years will recognize that climate is changing and will not dispute that the main argument is in regards to the causes.

I do not care much about the causes as personally I have no power to effect any change, but at the same time recognize that humans have a large impact in the ecosystems and so on the general environment, I doubt that any sane person would argue about that point.

So having those points established that it is a reality and that humans may contribute a have a large part of it the bottom line is how to avoid something that is contributing to a rapid and silent degradation of ecosystems and reduction of food production (increasing food instability and price rises) and aggravating and promoting natural disasters. Who must take a stand against it ? To me it is obvious that it must be humans, now at the same time I can obvious see the normal tendency to for some to attempt to profiteer from this circumstances and that should be exposed, like the carbon trading scheme...

Beyond forces that have vested interested in the necessary changes (against or in favor) I get that my view tends to be consensual to those that are even a bit informed or had the chance to observe directly the alterations and know how the world works. One needs not be a climate scientist to reach these conclusions (that the problem exists, that we are at least one of the primary causes and that we are the only ones that can prevent it from escalating)...



posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by GrantedBail
 

So what they're alleging is that there are "billions" spent on climate change "denial".

And we know that there are billions being spent on the climate change agenda.

So which camp is correct?

The one side stands to make $$$ from trading carbon credits while the other side will suffer through the limitations placed on their industries.

Sometimes they just make things up as they go along.

Who knows?

Although, I do feel uncomfortable about any group of men, government etc., controlling carbon, one of the essential building blocks of life.

edit on 23-12-2013 by gladtobehere because: wording



posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 11:58 AM
link   

gladtobehere
So which camp is correct?


I don't know.

But, I do know that we would be much further ahead if both sides had sent more of their PR money to legitimate research.

Ah well, such is life.



posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by GrantedBail
 



Here is the study.


The U.S. Government has spent approx. $11 billion for climate change research, education and communication in the last five years, out of a total budget for Climate Change Expenditures of $77 billion dollars. The main recipient is NASA, recieving more than half of the budget or between $1-1.5 billion annually. This does not include additional funding for NOAA of $3-5 billion per year, about half of it is spend on climate research and data administration.

The total amount spent by the U.S. federal government on climate change research and public education every year, is around $6 billion dollars, outspending the 'denialist camp' by at least six to one.

And every dollar spent was worth it. A huge success.

The five largest oil companies now all support the 'consenus' position that man-made climate change poses a significant risk, they are all in favor of large-scale policy actions and they all support a version of a global carbon tax or emission trading sheme. They are all on board for climate action.


The Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2007) provides an update of scientific understanding regarding GHG emissions, global warming and the risks of climate change, and the way changes could unfold in the future.

Rising greenhouse-gas emissions pose significant risks to society and ecosystems. Since most of these emissions are energy-related, any integrated approach to meeting the world’s growing energy needs over the coming decades must incorporate strategies to address the risk of climate change.

Exxonmobil



Population growth and economic development are driving energy demand. All energy sources will be needed, with fossil fuels meeting the bulk of demand. At the same time CO2 emissions must be reduced to avoid serious climate change.

To manage CO2, governments and industry must work together. Government action is needed and we support an international framework that puts a price on CO2, encouraging the use of all CO2-reducing technologies.

We believe the best way Shell can help secure a sustainable energy future is by focusing on four main areas: natural gas, biofuels, carbon capture and storage, and energy efficiency.

Shell



We believe that the most effective way to encourage companies to find, produce and distribute diverse forms of energy sustainably is to foster the use of markets that are open and competitive, and in which carbon has a price.

Our view is that putting a price on carbon – one that applies economy-wide and treats all carbon equally, whether it comes out of an industrial smokestack or a car exhaust – will make energy efficiency and conservation more attractive to businesses and individuals, and help lower-carbon energy sources become more cost competitive within the energy mix.

While a global price would be most economically efficient, regional and national approaches are a necessary first step, provided temporary financial relief is given to domestic industrial sectors that are trade exposed.

BP


So, with BIg Oil lined up behind the 'scientific consensus' what is this apparently not so well funded, super-secretive denial counter-movement supposed to accomplish? Issue not so secret reports every year that everyone can read or ignore?

It's a great conspiracy story, good science vs. the evil industry lobby. It's also extremely naive to assume governments worldwide can't come to agreements on reducing CO2 emissions because a secret network of 'denialists' in the U.S. is preventing effective policy actions.


The American Geophysical Union today released a revised version of its position statement on climate change. Titled “Human-induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action,” the statement declares that “humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years” and that ”rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.”



agu.org


If you're concerned about the propaganda being spread from lobbyist groups, just focus on the science. Arm yourself with knowledge.



Strategic Responses to Global Climate Change: Conflicting Pressures on Multinationals in the Oil Industry (2002!)



posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 06:35 PM
link   
It's the Sun.



posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 06:38 PM
link   
The Earth is nearly hundreds if not several hundreds of years old.

I honestly think we'll all be dead before we see any definitive change in the climate.



posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by webedoomed
 


hahaha r u serious. CO2 does not cause global warming, as u can see we are going through a global cooling period due to the inactive sun. CO2 is a big joke and has been proven time after time as a complete hoax so the elites can implement carbon taxes to fund that global domination. The dating of the layers of soil in Antartica proved that CO2 has nothing to do with global warming.



posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by amfirst1
 


You are completely discredited from anything related to the sciences for this obvious rubbish you spew forth.

Have a nice day.



posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by GrantedBail
 


So what exactly are you trying to say? That there is or is not climate change? Well first it was global warming. Then they realized that there's no "warming" going on so they changed the name to "climate change". All in an attempt to push the whole carbon credits scheme on big corporations. Trust me we still get minus 20-30c conditions here like clockwork even as soon as oct, and nov guaranteed. Nothing changed at all in terms of temperatures. If anything was changing all we'd know. We don't have to go by the BS research that is put out there by scientists that are told what findings they need to produce to back some adgenda. All we need to do is look around and see for ourselves if anythings changed. And no, nothing has changed on the planet. Any slight changes are completely normal and well within a range of normal changes that have occured since the dawn of time where we go through ice ages and back to warmer weather. And ya I agree anything in the media is pretty much 110% bs. Just do your own research by going outside and asking yourself "has anything changed?"



posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 11:23 PM
link   
Who was behind Algore & the hokum he was spewing in that movie?

Shouldn't every coastal city be underwater by now according to Algore?

Al go get a massage...



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by GrantedBail
 

Flag and star, good find because noise has to happen on both sides of an argument.

I'd personally like the American Enterprise Institute or some other globalist owned tank to immediately start a study on the dynamic, socially dysfunctional structure and (I feel) the biggest threat to mankind in its history...GREED.

In fact I'd like to see a large consortium of think tanks to independently study the problem-- so we can read arguments leading to which group of ass clowns is undoubtably greediest.
It should be a cinemascope revelation nothing short of legendary.
I also expect not one extra normal human to wake up to the scams.

Those most influenced by grants instead of scientific rigor, repeatable logical physical results or some other triviality are often a tipoff to me in regard as to who get the first headlines. And the last one in line is usually demonized as a loon for being too small and broke to produce valid data... as if money is a prerequisite for fact and truth. Hmm, what's dangerous now?

In short, when science is guided by political consensus instead of truth you get this. It's also a relief in my old age that mathematics was no more than a tool of my trade, rather than a cash cow. With all the wild shifts in just temperature data over even the last twenty years, it's no wonder they're all cracked up there.

Hey-- what's the temperature gradient and time period required to cause castastropic and total cross-sectional failure of an unloaded one meter diameter ivory softoff?
Oh wait, we don't know how much non-BGH whole milk the elephant drank as a calf, or even if Henry Mancini wrote the score. If you're over 50 and love movies you won't care about the answer. If not forget it. Drink your milk and Merry Whatever you're celebrating.



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by spartacus699
 


Yes, I was going to say the same thing.....NO-ONE is denying "Climate Change"....that is inevitable, it is our Earth, it is our Solar System, it has Always happened.

The Argument is.....In the 1970s it was Pollution (fair enough too..has been mostly addressed by the West), Population growth, and Ice Age to return....Then in the 1980s it was suddenly the Greenhouse effect, Ozone layer disappearing,... then in the 1990s it was Global Warning, seas will rise 10 feet by 2001, the Ice caps WILL melt by 2001 etc.....Then when that didnt happen...well its now Climate Change, its ALLLLL MANS Fault, those big V8s etc etc....ok yes, Climate Change, we agree...it is happening daily....that is Earth...Welcome.



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by GrantedBail
 


Thanks for the OP. It is more than evident that a lot of money is being put into climate denial and it is done for a reason. Peeps behind this are possible hurting our future and our home. Such activity should be considered criminality of the highest degree..



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 




Robert Brulle pushes back on @Guardian $1 billion/yr spin on his study of "climate change counter movement" funding: "You may have seen the Guardian article on my paper: I have written to the newspaper complaining about this headline. I believe it is misleading.

I have been very clear all along that my research addresses the total funding that these organizations have, not what they spent on climate activities. There is a quote in my paper that speaks directly to this: “Since the majority of the organizations are multiple focus organizations, not all of this income was devoted to climate change activities.”

It is fair to say these organizations had a billion dollars at their disposal. But they do a lot of other things besides climate change activities, and so saying that they spent $1 Billion on climate change issues is just not true. I did not attempt to analyze the internal spending of these organizations, and so I can say nothing about the total amount spent on climate change activities. I hope that this clarifies the findings of my research. Best Bob Brulle

A. Revkin @New York Times


Ironic, isn't it?



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 12:07 PM
link   
35 Inconvenient Truths

The errors in Al Gore’s movie


Algore





new topics
top topics
 
32
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join