A new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry’s disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue.
According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.
Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to “Manufacture Uncertainty” on Climate Change details the deceit. The link gets you a 1.7mb .pdf file.
“When one looks closely, ExxonMobil’s underhanded strategy is as clear and indisputable as the scientific research it’s meant to discredit,” said Seth Shulman, an investigative journalist who wrote the UCS report. “The paper trail shows that, to serve its corporate interests, ExxonMobil has built a vast echo chamber of seemingly independent groups with the express purpose of spreading disinformation about global warming.”
The Bush government has served as one of the many front organizations for ExxonMobil. Their complicity has been completely at odds with the charter of government — to work on behalf of the whole populace.
Global Warming (TM) – yeah!
Even if it’s real, it’s better to have warming than drive crappy little cars or use mass transit. No need for Earth if that’s what’s necessary to “save” it.
What would be expected? A Major corporation that makes 10 Billion in profit a Quarter to actually care about the world and life in it? C’mon….they don’t care that there will be nothing left to SPEND the money on! They are maintaining the status quo, not rockin the boat, and all that other mumbo….Why change a ‘good’ thing?
Its exactly like the Tobacco process. They know its bad, we know its bad, but hey…its how its always been done so hush and lets get to burning that OIL!!
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html
1. Mucous? When is the last time you had your head examined. Oh thats right its in an inconvenient area right now.
That’s right, environmentalist groups have nothing whatsoever to profit from promoting global warming hysteria. Or do they?
5,
How do environmentalists profit from getting stack-gas scrubbers put on coal plants and increasing the regulation of greenhouse-gas emissions? I’d love to see that cash flow diagram.
“A new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry’s disinformation tactics,as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue.”
A perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black.
Lets not think the UOCS is unbiased. They have a definite view and agenda as well.
#6. It is very simple. They get federal grant money to do research on ‘global warming’, that is how they have jobs. If there was no ‘global warming’ then there would be no more grant money, and not more jobs for environmentalists. Also, the groups get money from their members, no ‘global warming’ no member donations. No ‘global warming’ = no federal grant money = no research jobs = no new regulations. Here is the cash flow: Federal grant money goes to ‘global warming’ researchers, they produce (highly suspect) research, the EPA, Congress, White House, ect enact new regulations based on this. Repeat as needed.
#9 — “simple” being the operative word in your belief system. It may sound coherent on talk radio; but, life for scientists with a day job [both rank-and-file and leaders in virtually all enviro orgs] who decide to volunteer their time and energy to the ignorant alleyways of American politics — only adds extra tasks to their daily lives.
Unlike the politicians and pundits who get paid to front for people like ExxonMobil in the first place.
#10 Who do you think pays for the ‘day job’? Do you think research is done for free? However, I doubt you have ever thought.
The cupidity of some rightwing dweebs does become boring after a while. How many different ways can you say “kill the messenger” — after all? It didn’t work for Caeser. Why would you expect it to work for Exxon bootlickers?
Scientists paid under the table by Exxon, whoever — are so much more reliable. Or is that “obedient”?
Once again, the astroturfers come out of the woodwork to give their employers their money’s worth.
It’s always hilarious to see these brand new posters show up in droves for these events, each spouting essentially the same corporate blather.
Or maybe it’s just one guy, posting under 6 different names.
#6 – The Global Warming (TM) PR Group may indeed profit as #9 stated but their real goal is built into the thinly veiled Anti-American bias encoded in the Kyoto treaty. You notice who’s exempt in Kyoto and you can’t help but see that the real goal of Kyoto is to harm America and attempt to bring about one of the left’s favorite mantras: redistribution of wealth.
It’s just another attempt similar to what happened years ago with Acid Rain (TM). The media hypes how evil American industry is destroying the environment and everyone takes it at face value. A few years go by and it’s determined that the main source is actually Canadian industry. Well of course, it’s well known that Canada is not evil like the US, so the new studies never get any publicity.
I don’t know why people get so worked up anyway because Bird Flu (TM) and Mad Cow (TM) are most like most likely going to take so many of us out first that there won’t be any significant industry left, leaving the warming problem self-corrected after a little while.
# 13. Ahhh yes, the conspiracy angle. I bet there are some neo-cons (code word for Jews), Freemasons, the Federalist Society, and maybe even the CIA involved too.
Let me guess, if they agree with you they are pure as driven snow, but if they don’t they are dirty, evil, scoundrels.
Would it save you time if I called myself a fascist or Hitler? Or how about a Bush lover? Right wing whacko? Racist, perhaps?
Hance –
And the “Union Of Concerned Scientists” has been notorious for having relatively few actual scientists on its staff.
You can be part of the problem or part of the solution. Commenting on the situation is all good but action is the only way that anything will change. If something doesn’t disrupt the status quo we are ALL going to be in deep shit in 20 years or so.
http://www.worldchanging.com
I waited on this one, instead of being one of the first posters.
For those who don’t get it. You have to change your lifestyle, from being a huge gas consumer and meat consumer to save the environment from wasteful practices.
When I say you’re a hypocrite for not caring, you get all angry.
Hopefully your kids will change your heart one day.
Growing up in the 80’s, never did my Mother recycle the trash. There was no system in place. Took the younger, more educated on these issues, to act. Today my Mother recycles.
So as long as SUV’s are being built, people will buy them, no matter the cost. Takes government action (and balls) to change things, like banning smoking of cigarettes, etc.
Told my Father-in-law he’s a hypocrite (but not in a mean way) for not caring for the environment with his big luxury sedan, when he could have had a Camry Hybrid for the same price as his Lexus.
His reaction is typical of the 55+ year olds – I just never thought about it, I liked that one. How come they don’t show in TV ads the hybrids?
So, it’s not his fault. Yes, there is a conspiracy with gas, beef, pork & chickens. It’s called Capitalism.
To change, it has to be profitable to be green instead of dirty.
Canadians better? OMG NO, I’d say on average, we’re worse. Our electricity is way too cheap, extremely wasteful. Why pay thousands of $$ to properly insulate your house when it just costs 75$ a month to heat in winter?
Canada only seems better because we have more Hydro power and a smaller population.
#15, Mucous, you have outdone yourself this time. I suspect you might even believe the crap you spew.
their real goal is built into the thinly veiled Anti-American bias encoded in the Kyoto treaty.
Your post in #1 makes your position clear. Anything to conserve resources is bad. So even though Americans are the most energy INefficient people on earth, that is Ok with you. What you forget, Kyoto is ONLY step one.
The media hypes how evil American industry is destroying the environment and everyone takes it at face value. A few years go by and it’s determined that the main source is actually Canadian industry.
Bull crap. American industries and power generator used coal far in excess of what Canadians have. Coal, by the way, is the most polluting energy form available. Yes Canada had some bad pollutors. They have however been cleaned up and continue to become cleaner. Bush is allowing dirty industries to get worse.
I don’t know why people get so worked up anyway because Bird Flu ™ and Mad Cow ™ are most like most likely going to take so many of us out first that there won’t be any significant industry left, leaving the warming problem self-corrected after a little while.
As idiotic a comment as one would expect from you. After all, I don’t understand why you get so worked up about John Kerry being a better man when someone just might park in your handicapped spot.
This “Slow down cowboy” shit is really annoying.
#16 – How about fascist, Hitler worshiping, Bush loving, right-wing wacko racist?
I mean since you asked…..
#8 – Lets not think the UOCS is unbiased. They have a definite view and agenda as well.
Comment by Hance — 1/5/2007 @ 11:50 am
Their view and agenda is to promote good science and rational policy based on solid scientific information. Their agenda is what everyone’s agenda should be… But sadly, the right’s agenda is to protect the status quo, fuck the poor, and drive SUVs…
And that isn’t even fair. It isn’t the “right”. It’s the cross section of the “right” that is also too rich and lacking in any sort of empathy or concern for the rest of humanity… In other words, neo-cons and oil company CEOs.
Agendas are not nefarious by definition.
#24 “Their view and agenda is to promote good science and rational policy based on solid scientific information.”
Wrong! Their agenda varies between each member, but I’ve seen precious little proof that any of them can claim that they promote “good science.” And “rational policy” really depends upon who is doing the rationalization.
Good science is independent of the funding source. If some of the science being done on Exxon’s nickel is poor, then it’s not very hard to demonstrate the fact. However the Union of Concerned Scientists doesn’t do that, the organization resorts to attacking the science through its sponser, which is pure bullshit.
Good science can speak for itself. Be wary of any “science” that needs a cheering section.
Why is it that every global warming post ends up with people calling the **right** being tied to that god awful thing called **industry**, or that they are just rich, SUV drivers, and pollutors.
Have any of you people ever actually looked at industry?? First off, if they all went away as you wish,(which brings up outsourcing and factories moving out of the country, something the **left** says is crippling our nation) you would all be in one of the third world countries that is exempt from Kyoto. Not only do they provide the jobs that allows people to buy the products that others produce, but they also have strong ties to the **left** as well as the **right**….check out corproate americas political donations sometime.
Next, check out the so called **leaders** of the left. There’s a lot more money there than on the right folks. I keep reading about how the Democrats are going to correct all the problems in this country now that they are back in power……yeah, right…..don’t expect me to hold my breath for that comedy to happen. Nancy Pelosi is an extreamly wealthy Bay area dillitantte. Kennedy, Kerry, and most of the others are all multi-millionaires. Buffett, Gates, Allen, Jobs, they are all Billionaires and are on the left. How can these people have a clue what ordinary Americans need or want?
Some day, you all are going to figure out that left, right are the same thing, just different days.
Oh, and who is the first here that is willing to give up their lifestyle for a ***GREENER*** world?????
Bet I won’t be trampled to death in THAT stampede.
Oh, and who is the first here that is willing to give up their lifestyle for a ***GREENER*** world?????
Joshua, I agree with some of your statement, I too dont believe seriously that Democrats are going to save the world. All that aside, we needed the change, if they fail, we should come down as hard if not harder on them as we are the Reps at this time. But as for your statement above, I for one have done it and its not as devistating as you may think. Starting with the little things, recycling, using public transport if available, cars with better gas mileage. And if you can afford it , and the area you live in supports it, going solar for you home. The upfront cost when building or retrofitting a home are not as bad as you may think. And the payoff is large. Government should recognize this and either subsidize this effort or apply tax incentives. And pushing this government to INVEST in alternate fuel technology that we ALL know has been suppressed. I know this country can be the worlds leader in alternate energy sources, not only would it create a whole new industry (jobs), but maybe we could regain a little of the credibility in the eyes of the world.
But seriously, small changes on a large scale will produce benefits, and damn it we do have to start somewhere.
#25, How to go, Smith. Aside from statements of attainder — valueless outside of freshman debate class — I guess downloading and reading through that .pdf was just too taxing for you.
The point of the exercise was that the practice of stonewalling in opposition to scientific conclusions is reprehensible. The UCS demonstrated that point in depth. Too deep for the shallow-minded.
Apparently, you approve of partisan “science”.
#26, joshua
Have any of you people ever actually looked at industry?? First off, if they all went away as you wish,
Who is wishing industry away? That is a straw man argument used by the right to justify allowing industry to pollute. If you haven’t clued in yet, the answer is to clean up industry.
It doesn’t matter if the sulfur compounds are emitted in Colorado or China. They are still contributing to acid rain. It doesn’t matter if the CO2 comes from Arizona or Afghanistan, they are still contributing to global warming.
I keep reading about how the Democrats are going to correct all the problems in this country now that they are back in power
Then stop reading Mucous or James Hill comments. They are the only ones I am aware of say all the problems will be fixed by the Democrats. The rest of us are relieved that finally there will be some oversight.
#25, Good science is independent of the funding source. If some of the science being done on Exxon’s nickel is poor, then it’s not very hard to demonstrate the fact. However the Union of Concerned Scientists doesn’t do that, the organization resorts to attacking the science through its sponser, which is pure bullshit.
It’s called peer review. All good science uses it and expects it from other scientists.
Good science can speak for itself. Be wary of any “science” that needs a cheering section.
Such as being promoted through industry sponsored organizations?