Who is behind climate change deniers?

Who is behind climate change deniers?

www.theage.com.au

WHEN the tobacco industry was feeling the heat from scientists who showed that smoking caused cancer, it took decisive action.

It engaged in a decades-long public relations campaign to undermine the medical research and discredit the scientists. The aim was not to prove tobacco harmless but to cast doubt on the science.

In May this year, the multibillion-dollar oil giant Exxon-Mobil acknowledged that it had been doing something similar. It announced that it would cease funding nine groups that had fuelled a global campaign to deny climate change.

(visit the link for the full news article)

This is Disgusting. look at the manipulation that American oil companies and USA(along with their leaders) like Exxon Mobil does

heres the evidence:

Brad Miller, said Exxon's support for sceptics "appears to be an effort to distort public discussion".

The funding of an array of think tanks and institutes that house climate sceptics and deniers also worried Britain's premier scientific body, the Royal Society. It found that in 2005 Exxon distributed nearly $3 million to 39 groups that "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence that greenhouse gases are driving climate change". It asked Exxon to stop the funding and its protests helped force Exxon's recent retreat.

The Heartland Institute received almost $800,000 from Exxon, according to Greenpeace's research based on Exxon's corporate giving disclosures.

Another regular piece of evidence in the denial lobby's PR campaign is the "Oregon Petition". This urges the US Government to reject the Kyoto Protocol and claims there is "no convincing scientific evidence" for global warming. It is said to be signed by 31,000 graduates, most of whom appear to have nothing to do with climate science.

OMG, the propaganda and PR campaigns put out by US oil companies or imperialist genocidal US govt whether related to Global warming ,Democracy,Kyoto protocol etc. is disgusting .
USA is one of the worst deniers of the holocaust it is committing on the ecology of the planet

But perhaps the American oil companies' PR campaign is not the main reason for the success of the climate change deniers. There are at least three others. First, the implications of the science are frightening. Shifting to renewable energy will be costly and disruptive. Second, doubt is an easy product to sell.

The tide slowly turned on tobacco denial and the science was accepted in the end. But climate is different. There are no "smoke-free areas" on the planet. Climate denial may turn out to be the world's most deadly PR campaign.


www.theage.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)

Well this is not good on the surface as it does sidetrack the public from environmental issues. However, the current solutions offered to [NOT MANMADE] climate change is unacceptable. The carbon issues raised have been debunked from many established people across the board, and all it will achieve is a global tax.

So in a nutshell the oil companies are distracting the public from pseudo-environmental issues. What they are doing is wrong, but this a non issue as long as the enviro movement doesn't focus on the serious issues.

Let go of the carbon credit scam

Edit to add: And this applies to their slick change of words from "global warming" to "climate change". Don't get me started on the global warming fiasco

[edit on 2-8-2008 by vegno]

reply to post by manson_322
OK, someone paid for scientists to say Global Warming (I will not accept the name change) is not proven.

The problem is that people have been doing this in order to prove Global Warming does actually exist and is caused by burning dead dinosaurs. Both sides are implicated here. Al Gore is currently making millions from his lectures and is investing heavily in carbon credits. It would not surprise me to discover that he had paid scientists attempting to prove his side as well.

The issue is not what someone said, but the facts. CO2 is a 'greenhouse' gas, yes. It reflects something along the lines of 6% of the heat. 6%. That's all. CO2 is not poisonous at or even near present levels (present level is 387 ppm, harmful level begins at 10,000ppm). It exists within our bodies naturally as waste gas that we excrete through breathing. That waste is taken in by plants who use it combined with sunlight to grow using the carbon contained in it, giving off our oxygen as a by-product. It's called photosynthesis.

There are only three things which limit plant growth. Humidity, temperature, and CO2 levels. Increase any of these (within certain limits) and you increase the speed at which flora grows. The faster it grows, the more CO2 it transforms into oxygen. By emitting water from the leaf pores, these plants also encourage evaporation, which further cools the air.

Oceans also act like air conditioners when the temperature rises. As water evaporates from their surface, it cools the water and air by taking heat from them to compensate for the energy required to become water vapor. The warmer the air, the more water it can hold and the more water it will absorb through evaporation, producing a counter effect to the rising temperatures. Water evaporation has been used for cooling purposes since history began. Why does it not work now?

Another little tidbit. CO2 is slightly heavier than air. That means it does not rise quickly to the upper levels of the atmosphere. It remains fairly close to the ground (which, incidentally, is where the plants are. Isn't it wonderful how that works out?). Thusly, the 'blanket' of CO2 is nowhere near as thick as the atmosphere in general. It's a very thin, very light blanket that has existed longer than mankind and still hasn't wiped out all life on the planet.

Now, if someone pays a scientist to state these facts, does it make them less correct?

TheRedneck

reply to post by vegno


Global warming is manmade , particularly american and western made ,global warming deniers are funded by Exxon mobil

Who is behind climate change deniers?

* David McKnight
* August 2, 2008
* Page 1 of 3 | Single Page View

WHEN the tobacco industry was feeling the heat from scientists who showed that smoking caused cancer, it took decisive action.

It engaged in a decades-long public relations campaign to undermine the medical research and discredit the scientists. The aim was not to prove tobacco harmless but to cast doubt on the science.

In May this year, the multibillion-dollar oil giant Exxon-Mobil acknowledged that it had been doing something similar. It announced that it would cease funding nine groups that had fuelled a global campaign to deny climate change.

Exxon's decision comes after a shareholder revolt by members of the Rockefeller family and big superannuation funds to get the oil giant to take climate change more seriously. Exxon (once Standard Oil) was founded by the legendary John D. Rockefeller. Last year, the chairman of the US House of Representatives oversight committee on science and technology, Brad Miller, said Exxon's support for sceptics "appears to be an effort to distort public discussion".

The funding of an array of think tanks and institutes that house climate sceptics and deniers also worried Britain's premier scientific body, the Royal Society. It found that in 2005 Exxon distributed nearly $3 million to 39 groups that "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence that greenhouse gases are driving climate change". It asked Exxon to stop the funding and its protests helped force Exxon's recent retreat.

The chief scientist of New Zealand's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric research, Dr Jim Salinger, knows all about misrepresentation. Two months ago, he was named by an Exxon-funded group, the Heartland Institute, as a scientist whose work undermined the theory that burning carbon was a cause of global warming.

The Heartland Institute — essentially a free market lobby — emphasises that "the climate is always changing". Salinger's research studied variation in climate, so his research was enrolled in the denial campaign
Variations in the climate are normal, Salinger said, but this did not in any way weaken conclusions about the dangers of burning oil and coal. "Global warming is real," he said, and demanded reference to his work be removed. The institute refused. The Heartland Institute received almost $800,000 from Exxon, according to Greenpeace's research based on Exxon's corporate giving disclosures.

Another regular piece of evidence in the denial lobby's PR campaign is the "Oregon Petition". This urges the US Government to reject the Kyoto Protocol and claims there is "no convincing scientific evidence" for global warming. It is said to be signed by 31,000 graduates, most of whom appear to have nothing to do with climate science.
www.theage.com.au...

reply to post by TheRedneck


can you prove what you post more elaborately

reply to post by manson_322


What is this term climate change suppose to mean?? Dont get me wrong.. but the only thing Ive been hearing about is global warming... Is this climate change (term)... taking the place of global warming??? and why??

reply to post by philjwolf


yes, it means global warming...

reply to post by manson_322
There are links to the basics throughout the post. Can you be more specific as to what you want evidence on?

reply to post by philjwolf
'Climate Change' is what 'Global Warming' was changed to when someone remembered the 80s scare about the coming global ice age. It leaves the advocates an 'out' if things start cooling back down. At least, that's how I tend to see it.

TheRedneck


[edit on 2-8-2008 by TheRedneck]

reply to post by TheRedneck


bascis from wiki

he noise has been loudest on the internet, where websites give voice to people who believe scientists are suppressing evidence to protect their careers.

Unfortunately for the sceptics, and for everyone else, the evidence for human-induced climate change is stronger than ever. Scientists the Herald spoke to were candid in their assessment that there was little room for doubt that global warming is happening and that the only changes in the past few months have been political changes.

"It looks as though the population believes climate change is serious and there seems to be momentum behind the issue, and there are some people who don't like that," says Chris Mitchell, head of the CSIRO's Climate, Weather and Ocean Prediction group. "There are still plenty of creationists around, and there are people who believe tobacco is not linked to serious health effects, and so there are still people who choose to ignore or doubt the amount of evidence for climate change."

Andy Pitman, an editor of the prestigious international Journal Of Climate, says there are good reasons why global warming sceptics cannot get a run in peer-reviewed scientific literature. "We would kill, literally kill, for a good paper that proved the science on global warming was wrong," Pitman says. "Then I could retire and accept my chair at Harvard. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen, and there's vast amounts of evidence why."
www.smh.com.au...

The noise has been loudest on the internet, where websites give voice to people who believe scientists are suppressing evidence to protect their careers.

as you skeptics have nothing to prove that global warming is fake ,

its a coverup being done by american govt and comapnies so that they are not forced to pay carbon taxes for the massive damage they have done to the poor mother nature

reply to post by manson_322
Yeah, true, I used wiki. Does that negate a fact, if it is published somewhere you don't want it to be published?

The post was recounted from college courses in chemistry and physics, with a little private research (using libraries and my own collection of textbooks, before the Internet) I did a while back on photosynthesis and high-speed plant growth. The links were put in as an afterthought, so to save time, I used a convenient, if not the most reputable, source to give some backing for the things I said.

Now, I ask you, sir, without all the rambling about who said what, exactly which areas of my post are you questioning? The science behind photosynthesis? the science behind CO2 as a greenhouse gas? The use of CO2 in the atmosphere? How about the evaporational cooling?

I will gladly educate you on any of the topics in my post you are unclear about. However, you have to tell me which ones you are challenging. That's how it works.

Edit to add: if there are any more places you think cannot possibly contain anything facts, please include a list of them. I have wiki down to start the list.

TheRedneck


[edit on 2-8-2008 by TheRedneck]

huh, i have an idea for you AGWers.

stop being confrontational for the sake of it, because it shows your true colors.


like it or not, no matter what the consensus is or who's right, the motives or today's 'environmental' movement are dishonest and detrimental, just take a look at the following thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Wow, no one has picked up on this yet?

Scientists at Columbia University are developing a carbon dioxide (CO2) scrubber device that removes one ton of CO2 from the air every day.

While some see the scrubber as an efficient and economical way to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide, many environmentalists are opposing the technology because it allows people to use fossil fuels and emit carbon in the first place.

Source: www.heartland.org...

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

So, let me get this straight. We are told that carbon dioxide emissions are responsible for man-made Global Warming. We are told that these excessive carbon dioxide emissions are going to destroy our planet and kill us all. We are told that we must conserve energy because only this way will we be able to bring down CO2 emissions.

Now we have technology that actually can decrease the amount of CO2 in the air. This is am obvious offset to the rising CO2 levels and therefore a solution to the problem that does not force everyone on the planet to stop using energy. But that's not enough?

On May 5, for example, the activist groups Students Promoting Environmental Action and Save Our Cumberland Mountains demonstrated in Knoxville, Tennessee against carbon sequestration. Repeatedly citing a Greenpeace position paper, they argued eliminating the use of coal, not reducing atmospheric CO2, should be society's primary goal.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

If there ever was a telling argument against Global Warming hysteria, it is this. The agenda is not to save the planet, it is obviously to tax the planet.

I can't wait to hear the refutes...

TheRedneck

in reality, IF these groups really believed that CO2 was a real issue, they'd welcome any relief - which they don't. your agressive and confrontational posting style, which revolves around bashing only, clearly illustrate that you're one of these people.

So, would you please do everyone including yourself a favour and stop being intellectually dishonest? if you dislike the current state of affairs, be my guest, but de-industrialisation via air-tax will only strengthen those who get to write the legislation and hurt everyone else.

Get off our backs. Now

[edit on 2008.8.2 by Long Lance]

reply to post by Long Lance
Glad to see you're watching LL.

As I suspected, this guy just wanted to push his agenda without anything to back it up, save someone's opinion. He started another thread with the same tired reference when I confronted him here.

Ah, well, I'll be here when he pops up again. Maybe next time he'll have something close to facts instead of rhetoric.

It's time to kill the CO2 myth once and for all.

TheRedneck

I'm very skeptical of anthropogenic global warming, for the record.

I am not a denier of global warming, i just am not convinced that humans are responsible as it seems that the earth has warmed and cooled many times in the past and it would seem that some believe that all the other planets in the solar system are warming aswell.
As i have stated for the record before i am a Clarksonite so i am less prone to believing global warming is a bad thing than others are.

Originally posted by manson_322
Global warming is manmade , particularly american and western made ,global warming deniers are funded by Exxon mobil

Really? I guess the Indians and the Chinese don't have a single thing to do with it, right?

And how many coal fired plants are the Chinese making per year?

reply to post by TheRedneck



Just FYI, CO2 recyclers, ie; "artificial trees" have been around for some time. But I don't think you'll hear Algore talking about them.

GW is a farce.

www.americanenergyindependence.com...

reply to post by jerico65


Absolutely. Esp. India, with all those cows crapping in the streets!

Yeah damn those developing nations,WE should be the ones polluting the air and making money,improving our civilians lives..much like we did in the 20th century...please you guys are completely idiotic.Anyway man made global warming=farce...global warming happens...and lets say our measly emissions actually do influence global warming....how long would it halt the process...although i do agree cleaner energies are a must for the future along with getting rid of things like plastic etc...

Originally posted by jsobecky
Absolutely. Esp. India, with all those cows crapping in the streets!

I completely forgot about how cows are the big cause of GW because of their methane farts.

Well, I say we just eat 'em. That's why God made them out of meat, as Homer Simpson has said in the past.