Slashdot Mirror
Big Tobacco Funded Anti-Global Warming Messages
An anonymous reader writes, "The UK Guardian is running an excerpt from the new book "Heat" by George Monbiot (to be published later this month) spelling out the network of funding opposing global action against global warming — specifically, limits on human carbon dioxide generation. The excerpt outlines a web of fake citizens' groups and bogus (but authoritative sounding) research institutes designed to convince laypeople that human causation of global warming is scientifically controversial. Not surprisingly, the article notes funding by ExxonMobil. More interesting is the role played big tobacco, tying their attack on the health risks of second-hand smoke to global warming skepticism." From the article: "What I have discovered while researching this issue is that the corporate funding of lobby groups denying that man-made climate change is taking place was initiated not by Exxon, or by any other firm directly involved in the fossil fuel industry. It was started by the tobacco company Philip Morris."
OK, I smoke. Probably about 10 roll-ups a day. But I also don't drive a car, I bike everywhere.
Man, do I feel guilty for causing all that global warming through smoking! (I have no qualms in believing smoke passive or otherwise is detrimental to health though)
When the article in Rolling Stone written by RFK Jr was posted, the Slashbot mantra was: "What difference does it make what the source is? Consider the facts presented!"
Right back at'cha.
What's surprising at this point isn't that Big Oil sponsors misleading propaganda to sway public opinion and protect their interests, it's that so many people continue to ignore the facts and accuse those of us who talk about these kinds of tactics as Tin Foil Hat Wearing Lefty Scare Mongerers (or insert your favorite slur here).
It's not just this issue, it's a whole host of issues including the 2000 & 2004 elections, the (non) connection of Iraq to Al-Qaeda and others. When will we all wake up?
(off to do penance for straying off the immediate topic)
The jury is still out on the CO2 angle and proselytizing to the slashdot CO2 choir
....
wont help.
Who btw is funding the CO2 crowd.... why of course the business interests that are built
squarely on the CO2 business plan. The shortest way to locate these is simply to follow
the Euros from the CO2-Professors wallet back to the eurosocialist elite coffers.
Oh well... slashdot and responsible journalism
designed to convince laypeople that human causation of global warming is scientifically controversial
Well, could it be that they're trying to convince people because it IS controversial?
I KNOW people want to believe this. That's fine. It's a belief, great. So is Catholicism. And, like Catholicism, that doesn't mean it's fact. Global warming, right now is a theory with lots of supporting evidence, but no proof. If it had proof, it wouldn't be a theory.
Additionally, the whole global warming thing is all over the map. We're going to cook. We're going to dive into an ice age. The seas are going to heat up. The seas are going to cool off. About the only thing that the various claimants agree on is "Global Warming Is A Bad Thing".
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
"bogus (but authoritative sounding) research institutes designed to convince laypeople that human causation of global warming is scientifically controversial."
Oh no, it's a given. After all, the inventor of the internet has said it so it must be true. What, with all of Al Gores impressive scientific background, how could anyone doubt it.....
You guys are such a bunch of chicken littles it's unreal. Much of the "scientific" (by that I mean those working in climatology and meterology not those working on womens rights and black issues) community does have considerable doubt about human interactions effect on climate and, so called, "global warming". Global warming itself has never been shown to exist by anyone other than pseudo scientists and folks working for agencies that benefit from the idea of same. Get facts and stop regurgitating the what you're told. Why not look at some of the data yourself? It's out there.....
Global Warming is just this mass consensus all scientists agree to in order to receive more funding. We need much more accurate data before this can be proven or disproven. Just imagine how inaccurate temperature readings were from even 100 years back (we're almost talking about cavemen recording temperatures on their holy scrolls). Then remember that temperature readings gathered in other ways (such as from arctic ice, etc.) are not 100% accurate either. They have +/- just like polling results. Then think about what scientists define global warming as ... it's a global temperature rise of a few fractions of a degree. So, could it not be possible that with all the inaccuraces of historical temperatures that there is actually Global Cooling? Or even worse, there really has been no change at all? But don't bother reading my post, because the /. moderators will come by and mod it down anyways because it has no actual proof or scientific data, just right-wing common sense.
You poor martyr, I'll contact Jesus and let him know you'll need his cross a little while longer.
This part of my reply got left out for some reason...
Apparently, you drive with your face mere inches away from other cars and with non-functioning windows. Guess what? If you drive, you have to deal with loud stereo systems, bright lights, and people cutting you off. Are you going to embark on a self-righteous crusade to ban everything in the world so that we all make your life less annoying for you, you poor soul?
Here's a reality check--life will never be 100% satisfactory for you, and there will always be annoying things you have to tolerate in the world. You can't just run off and ban everything you don't like. If you do, enjoy the fascist government that follows.
"Sufferin' succotash."