The REAL Influence of Money in the AGW Debate

Posted on September 1, 2011

0


The tired old claim from the right is that the science of global warming and climate change is “far from settled” is a complete echo chamber fabrication spun by right wing think tanks and Faux News.

The scientific consensus is overwhelming http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/glo … ensus.html But the fore mentioned groups are the ones that politicize the issue.

Remember “Climate Gate” and the right’s claim that the hacked East Angelia e-mails “proved that Climate change was a hoax? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfekvMHIBeQ
The denier in the Faux News video asked for an investigation into the e-mails and low and behold, there were FIVE! http://www.republicanleadershipnetwork.com/post/10 Yup, five separate investigation vindicated the scientists in question. These e-mails were a non-story blown out of proportion by Faux Noise http://mediamatters.org/research/201102010025#6 and the usual suspects on talk radio but the same media outlets that were incredibly mum on the subject as each new investigation proved that the “climategate” joygasam was nothing but premature by the right wing echo chamber. Yes that second link is Media Matters but they have a clear chronology and references.

If anyone on the right want’s the actual science, then I suggest the following for further reading: the IPCC reports http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat … orts.shtml, NOAA’s two cents http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat … orts.shtml, as well as NASA’s http://climate.nasa.gov/,and on and on and notice not once did I mention or use Al Gore as a source. He is a red herring that the right likes to use, attack the messenger to dilute the message. He has nothing to do with this argument.  If you like short lists with further info, here is one that lists 169 climate change skeptic arguments and what the actual science says http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php.

Now another aspect that the deniers point to is the justification that there is some sort of big conspiracy that climate science is just a big hoax to make money for climate scientists and green energy. Now this is a common tactic by the right, accuse the opposition of the very behavior that you yourself have. Here some prime examples, The Competitive Enterprise Institute (who also manages a dig at teachers in this article) tries to paint climate scientists as these elitists that make more than CEOs http://cei.org/op-eds-articles/all-aboa … ravy-train however, let’s look at who contributes to the CEI see page 9 http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/cgi/getd … ef=results where you will see Amoco, Texaco, the Koch brothers and more. In fact Exxon was getting a lot of heat for funding junk science against global warming and pulled funding from them in 2005 http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/20/news/co … /index.htm but they sure did give them money before that. But video says it best. Here is the CEI commercials that ran for awhile http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_VmMIbWKoo and here is an actual scientist and a hard hitting interviewer crushing a CEI head getting hammered for their connections with Exxon and that stupid commercial http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyKUblhX … re=related.

Speaking of denier funding, the website http://www.globalwarming.org/ is run by the “Cooler Heads Coalition” which is a veritable who’s who of right wing think tanks funded by the Koch brothers http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree … s-lobbying and the Oil industry. Dr. Willie Soon http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=115 is one of those proverbial scientists that denies AGW but he got his hand caught in the cookie jar of Exxon http://bigpicture.posterous.com/climate … ed-1m-from. Then you have Richard Muller http://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/23-Medie … rming.html who has been a skeptic for a while. Turns out his Koch brothers funded project to disprove climate change caused by man http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/04 … y-20110404, shows results nearly IDENTICAL to the data that supports AGW. There is also the Anthony Watts the weatherman who runs the http://wattsupwiththat.com/author/wattsupwiththat/ blog and is also a big denier. The Heartland Institute funded his book questioning the reliability of US surface temperature readings and they tried to pull this video from YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_0-gX7a … r_embedded. Who is the Heartland Institute? They host the “International Conference on Climate Change” which is a deniers gathering. And surprise, Walter F. Buchholtz, an ExxonMobil executive, serves as Heartland’s Government Relations Advisor, according to Heartland’s 2005 IRS Form 990, pg. 15. http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2 … fbb2-9.pdf and guess who co-sponsors this event http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti … ate_Change, yup the usual suspects of Koch brother funded groups like Americans for Prosperity and the afore mentioned CEI. Also in the mix is the long time neo-con stalwarts, The Heritage Foundation and even the downright ridiculous Ayn Rand Institute (they are like scientologists in that they take the zany fictional ideas of bad writers and make them a religion; scientologists have L. Ron Hubbard for their cult.)

It is too easy to find examples of the fossil fuel industry funding for the deniers. I could go on and on but you get the point. Let me touch on political influences and I will close. The number one climate change denier in congress, the guy that out right calls it a scam, is James Inhofe from Oklahoma. Guess who funds his elections http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/ … 582&type=I and why are the GOP in general so anti climate changehttp://www.opensecrets.org/politi … 582&type=I ? So you see, unlike the shadowy “conspiracy” that climate change is a hoax to make money for Al Gore and climate scientists, there is a very REAL concerted effort and huge amount of money waged against climate science and global warming. It is not shadowy and it’s motives are obvious. These players stand to lose a lot of money if we actually take action based on the current overwhelming consensus among scientists. How much is at stake for them http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/21/VMZQ.html http://abcnews.go.com/Business/exxon-sh … d=13472740? I have illustrated just a small portion of their influence in the debate. They had a big financial influence on the midterms http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oc … ge-deniers . Influence buys lots of things for the fossil fuel guys http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-17/poli … M:POLITICS http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2011 … gas-rules/.

Advertisements
Posted in: Political rant