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."
The tobacco companies are seeing that their basic agenda and their best interests are very similar to the oil companies. Tobacco companies have people hooked on to a big health hazard while big oil compaines do this using the black goo they extract. Between them, it does not matter who is supporting what.
For the free market to operate "correctly" (allocating money/resources to entities that generate value) its members must have access to good information about products -- their benefits and their costs. In the idealized theory, the market must have perfect information about products.
When the sources of information are so frequently corrupted by established power centers, how is there any home that efficient value-allocation will occur?
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
. . . they're employing their core competency to leverage creation of a favorable issue environment.
Put another way, what they're doing is encouraging the creation of a population of irate soreheads programmed to doubt anything on command.
I mean, dang, there are a lot of folks out there who think Penn Jillette and Micheal Crichton are authorities on global warming and second hand smoke.
The people who want to blame Exxon for Hurricane Katrina are obviously picking and choosing. As I understand it, though, scientists have a reliable measurement -- global mean surface temperature -- which shows a steady rise and which is not contradicted by local cooling. I like that scene in the Crichton book when a guy points to a cooling trend at a single weatherstation and says "there's your global warming".
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
What's the motivation behind Philip Morris trying to debunk global warming?
After reading that a couple of years back, I would definately be interested in checking out his latest work.
She's built like a steak house, but she handles like a bistro....
Yes, the art of deception. The doctrine of "perception is greater than truth" is followed by people and organizations of low moral standards. One would think that in the age of instant information one could ferret out these amoral jerks but it's not easily done.
A couple of enabling factors are present that contributes to the problem.
1. In general people are lazy, complacent sheep who hear what they want to hear and don't take the trouble of getting involved until a problem directly impacts their lives. When that happens it is usually too late.
2. There is such a volume of information and disinformation that it all blends into a kind of white noise that can make shifting the truth difficult for the few who really want to get at the truth. And if they do get at the truth problem one and two kicks in. Few will listen and their warnings just become part of the white noise.
I'm just as guilty as most. It's just easier for me to sit back and watch seeds of corruption grow and bear fruit. Oh, I add to the white noise with my complaints but there are so many issues and no one really listens anyway. The shame is that the fruit of corruption will eventually be the end of mankind or maybe even all life on Earth.
Heh, intelligent animals... Mother nature's greatest mistake!
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
So now, not only are smoker responsible for 1000's of deaths from 2nd hand smoke, they are now responsible for global freaking warming?
Hehehe...geez. I mean, so far, not even the WHO's study on SHS shows a meaningful connections between SHS and lung cancer in non-smokers....
Lordy...if it is that bad, why not just make it against the law...or is this global warming connection thing the last nail in the coffin of tobacco smokers?
(Note: Former smoker here...trying to quit, but, againts all the laws disallowing smoking in bars or other privately owned establishments.)
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Libertarianism is unworkable and deeply flawed. It, like Communism, relies on something that does not exist: the perfect human being. In order for Libertariansim to work all people must work towards their own elightened self interest. The problem is that's not how humans work. We (and I'm speaking in terms of populations more than particular people) are selfish, needy, dishonest and mean.
Libtertarianism also relies on corporations acting in their own best, long-term self interest. We've all see that modern corporations don't look any further down the road than their next quaterly statement and in every place where there is not sufficient regulations they abuse the system and their employees to the limits of human endurance. That chemical spill in India was the result of an American chemical company locating a plant in a country with lax environmental and safety laws and operating their plant at those minimum specs in order to save money.
To blindly trust businesses is folly at best and suicide at worst. The only time businesses care about you is when you spend your money on their products and services. Never forget that.
I grew up in a Libertarian household. None of them remain Libertarians.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
You, Sir, are an idiot. Thanks for displaying that fact for all to see. You've provided NOTHING substantive at all to backup your rebuttal....rebuttal, HA! Since you seem content to throw out "go read this" instead of actually laying out a claim, go read about the recent ice cores form Greenland. Wow, the "wacked-out, agenda-oriented" scientists there discovered that our relatively mild climate over the last few centuries is an anomaly. In fact, they found drastic changes in climate within as little as a decade. We can expect climate change not because we are bent on self-destruction but because the climate is long overdue for its more common state: chaotic!
Talk about agenda's, the Left is using a natural swing (and historically mild) in climate to leverage power. THAT is agenda, Idiot.
What will I be modded this time? Do I hear, Flamebait? How about Troll? How about the ever popular Off-Topic?
Isn't it amazing how the side you're on is always right?
The other side is always lying, deceiving, manipulating... aka propagandizing. But, certainly not YOUR side.
(pardon my completely unbiased interjection)
My ZooLoo
Gravity is a theory
Of course, its the basis for which I pick my side.
Now, how come I don't get an Insightful when I call people idiots?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
What "global warming" really means is any type of weather whatsoever. I've heard people blame global warming for hot weather, cold weather, rain, dry spells, snow, mild winters, harsh winters, hurricanes, wind, no wind. Basically global warming has just become a boogeyman for socialists to use to push their agenda, which is of far more concern to them than the actual environment.
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.
"Gravity" is just a theory. That things denser than air fall toward the surface of the Earth is a fact, as are other facts that relate to gravity. The theory of gravity (pick one... Newton's, Einstein's...) attempts to explain those facts and predict further facts from such an explanation. No amount of watching things fall will EVER "prove" the theory of gravity correct, at least in such a way to change it from a "theory" to a "fact".
Likewise, that the average surface temperature of the Earth is increasing is a fact ("global warming"). There are theories that attempt to explain this. Some of these theories are well-supported by the facts. Others may not be. But none of them will even be "proven" and elevated to anything beyond a theory.
Theories aren't proven. They don't become facts, no matter how much support they receive or how well they hold up. Theories are always theories and being "just a theory" doesn't make an idea any less sound.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Yes, Big Tobacco and Big Oil have common interests. So do the Big Automotive Industry and Big Entertainment. Big Media, Big Military Contractors, and that Biggest of all Big Boys, Haliburton (which industry ARE they in anyway?).
To the extent that Science and Reason, the Romulus and Remus of the foundation of modern culture, learn that certain behaviors of Big Money have a negative impact on the lives of human beings worldwide, Big Money will do everything in its power (and its power is immense) to try to deny, cover up, bury and buy off the scientists and other reasonable humans who try to spread the news.
Today, Media and Government have been coopted by Big Money. Lock, stock and smoking barrels, nearly every large Media Provider and certainly every part of Government has been bought off in the most egregious ways. There's barely an effort to cover it up any more. Decades ago when General Electric bought one of the Big Three television networks, there were voices screaming out that this could mean the death of the free exchange of information. Those voices were exactly right. When was the last time that you saw anything on television that specifically challenged the Consumerist/Globalist status quo. The FCC has allowed those big corporations to consolidate television, radio and print media to the point where a very few very powerful and rich organizations now own every single media outlet of any size and influence (Wired Magazine included).
Our government (small "g") could possibly be the ombudsman of the interests of human beings in this equation, but because of the money involved in running for office, that will never happen. Something happens to the most honest of men when they are handed a big check by a hail-fellow-well-met who winks at them and says, "it's good to have friends". And nobody gets to hold office without spending sums of money that absolutely REQUIRE Big Money donors. There have been efforts to finance elections publicly, but Those In Power have shot down those efforts by (how ironic) calling them "anti-free speech". Somehow, in the last few decades, money had come to equal speech.
It may be that it's too late for elections, op-eds or clever blogs to make any difference in the corporate ownership of our government. Stories about Diebold and voter fraud that have been all over the news lately are evil harbingers of a message that few of us can stomach admitting: Our freedom is lost. Oh sure, we have plenty of room to express our cynicism, our snarkiness, our wise-alecky comments about President Chimpy McHitler, but if there was any danger of a message getting out that could endanger the profits of our kleptigarchs, it would never see the light of day. Progressive messages will get thrown around in the run-up to the November elections, but SURPRISE! in the "closest election in history", the forces of Corporate Domination will win again. "Better luck next time" they'll say, and with all the sick optimism of a diehard Cubs fan, many of us will dig in for another 2 years of irony, cynicism and snarky comments on blogs.
It may just be time that those of us who still crave a world where individuals matter, where government actually acts in the interest of the people, where the ideas of men like Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, who believed in the message of Enlightenment, can still live, must act. And we must act in bold and dynamic ways.
We must act in ways that can't be covered up by a complicit media. As silly as it may sound to you technical boy-wonders who read Slashdot today, things like general strikes, mass demonstrations, civil disobedience might be our only chance at this point. And it might not be enough. But if we don't try, then it's definitely too late already.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I'm no socialist. I think there's sometimes good reason for allowing billionaire's to prevent poor people taking their food. But I'm not so brainwashed as to think that it's axiomatic and in absolutely no need of justification. Only a libertarian could have such a twisted view of 'liberty'.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
The organization at the core of all of this is The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC). Odd linky which connects them to here.
...
Ready for the brain-twister? They are pro nuclear energy.
Demonize away!
The other interesting tidbit found here (sorry about the horrid flash link) is that Exxon has moved $12+ million (discoverable) towards anti-global warming organizations. That sounds like a lot -- until you realize they make a billion $ a day
I'm thinking about it, therefore I might be.
It's scary how many /.-ers seem to hold opinions like the grand-parent of this post.
Then again, many (probably most) of us are American, and we are the guys who:
- Believe that evolution is "junk science"
- Don't believe in global warming
- Are proud to be "Ditto Heads"
- Fell prey fear during the Salem Witch Trials, the McCarthy Era, and now Neoconservatism
If you need public support for a scientifically proven wrong point of view, simply back the majority of us who think science is bunk. Join the Religious Right, Big Tobacco, Exxonmobil, and the Neoconservatives in taking advantage of (and promoting) our ignorance.
Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
The Myth of Second Hand Smoke claims that inhaling smoke from somebody else's tobacco is at least as dangerous as being a smoker, if not more so.
Ahhh, but this is not what was stated and this is, by itself, an assumption. There is a lot of research that has gone into secondhand smoke by a lot of different groups, some of which was scientific and some of which was not. While there may have been claims by some that secondhand smoke is more dangerous to nonsmokers, that was by no means claimed by all. The important question is, what are the dangers of secondhand smoke and are they significant?
The study you site involves two people both exposed to secondhand smoke. One is a smoker and one is not. It then monitors the rate of lung/throat cancer, presumably with other controls and normalization on the test group. How then can you claim, "claims that Second Hand Smoke is dangerous are bad pseudo-science at best, intentional lies at worst." when this study only addresses the relative danger of smoke exposure to smokers and non-smokers?
By almost all reputable accounts second hand smoke is dangerous to both smokers and non-smokers, although different studies have shown this to differing degrees. To claim that a study that provides support for the idea that secondhand smoke is not more dangerous to non-smokers somehow supports the idea that secondhand smoke is not dangerous, is what I would refer to as "dangerous pseudo-science." From the CDC, "Secondhand smoke exposure causes heart disease and lung cancer in nonsmoking adults. Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work increase their heart disease risk by 25-30 percent and their lung cancer risk by 20-30 percent."
You seem to have fallen for a bait and switch marketing ploy.
So, pop quiz. Which seems more likely to you? (a) A cabal of college professors, not standing to lose much of anything, jeopardize their careers and their scientific credibility by conducting a widespread campaign of disinformation to subvert the scientific process and whip the public into a panic. (b) A cabal of titanic multinational corporations, standing to lose untold billions if carbon controls are implemented, conducts a widespread campaign of disinformation to subvert the scientific process and confuse the public.
I understand that it makes for good airplane reading, but come on. In the real world, Occam's Razor rips the whole mess to shreds. (Plus, isn't it telling that the best bit of media global warming deniers have on their side is an unabashed work of fiction?)
(Also, if you're going to claim the existence of the aforementioned scientist conspiracy, please provide at least as much evidence as there already is for option (b). Thanks.)
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Oh, please. Al Gore is hardly fearmongering. If you take a quick glance, you'll see that the ExxonMobil noise machine makes a set of claims, and Al Gore makes a set of claims. You could be forgiven for thinking that, naturally, the truth lies just about in the middle. Most people don't have the time or the inclination to do their own research, and this is a common strategy---one tha the aforementioned noise machine takes advantage of.
ExxonMobil's claims are lies, half-truths, distortions and deceptive readings of old evidence. If they have evidence, they should submit it to the same process everyone else goes through. But they don't. They should influence your thinking on climate change about as much as the profusion of ID books at your local Christian bookshop means that it's just about as correct as evolutionary theory. The claims that Gore makes are backed up by consensus. By the best methods we have of finding things out, this is what we know.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
There's a reason why we live better in the USA than people did in the Soviet Union, or in the typical middle-east dictatorship.
Indeed, and that reason is mostly to do with the rule of law and a well regulated market, which is not much like the "free market" libertarians defend. Nations with better-regulated markets than the U.S., like Canada, Denmark and Sweden to name but a few, have populaces that live better than people in the USA do. At least according the UN measure of quality of life.
Neither libertarianism nor communism require "perfect humans", whatever those might be. But they do require human beings to be other than they actually are, and therefore have not been notably successful in the creation of stable societies.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
I guess this is technically off-topic, but I hate, HATE those Truth.com commercials
You got that right: Your feelings about commercials on TV are offtopic.
To see a bunch of snotty college kids in commercials going around telling everyone how evil cigarettes are, when you know these same kids get drunk and smoke weed on the weekends
Wow, typecasting much! Wanna add something about their mama, while you're at it?
they even dupe local governments into complying and forming a nice little pseudo-fascist state where you can be arrested for daring let a smoker into your club or restaurant (but remember, drunks and stoners are a-okay!).
1- Stoners are routinely put in prison.
2- If you drink next to me, I don't get second-hand drinks in my stomach.
When your smoke stays out of my lungs and eyes, and when its stink stays out of my clothes and hair you'll have a point. In the meantime, you couldn't be further from the truth.
You can't take the sky from me...
Property is essentially the opposite to liberty. So, I'm not sure why libertarians bang on about freedom, when what they really want is ownership.
... and then they built the supercollider.
this doesn't pass the smell test. there's no sureer way of getting more people on the side of your cause than to lump the other side with existing known boogeymen.
next we're going to learn that people who don't believe the moon landing was faked are aligned with nazis
I really hate hearing that term. The anti-smoking industry (yes, it is a huge money grubbing industry) has convinced the public that smoking is killing X number of people by making up this term 'Smoking related illeness'. For example Lung Cancer. If you die of lung cancer, you are immediatly added to the total number of people that died of 'smoking related illness' This is irrelevent to whether you would run 10 miles every day out in the desert, and consistently inhailed sand particles that were blown up in the air, and scratched the hell out of your lungs every day for 30 years. It must have been the evil second hand smoke!!!
I cannot believe for one second that inhailing the crap spewing out of the back of cars does not lead to 'Smoking related illness'.
Some of my favorite commercials that have come from the anti-smoking industry were, one where a half dozen early 20'ers are driving around in a beat up old van with nasty chemicals spewing from the tailpipe, while screaming over a megaphone at the houses of tabaco executives.
The one where they tell you that someone living with a smoke is more likely to die because the second hand smoke in so much more dangerous than the directly inhaled smoke. Completely ignoring the fact that the smoker will be breathing significantly more second hand smoke than anyone they live with.
And the one where they the tabaco industry MUST be advertising to kids, because 34 years ago one of their market researchers noticed that kids like sweets. Of course its a good thing that we got those secret documents, because we would have never know that kids like sweet otherwise, and after all, no adults like sweets.
The biggest here is that once an idea gets to a certain point, the proponents of that idea can just start out right lying. Then anyone that calls them on their lies gets villinized. After all, think of the children.
It's real simple. Smoking is bad for you. Anything that you inhail into your lungs that is not air (with a few medical exceptions) is bad for you. Smoking is NOT as bad as the smoking industry wants to make it out to be. If it was, 20% of our population would be dead within the next few year, and our society would be in freefall.
If you want a perfect example, look at the American Lung Association's website. If you can't see any questionable 'fact' in there, you have already drank the cool-aid.
The problem that the 'environmentalists' have is that their side of the global warming debate has been playing the same game as the anti-smoking industry. They have made many outragous claims, and frequently request or demand that people change their lives based on questionable data at best. Does that mean that we shouldn't work for cleaner air? No. Does it mean that global warming isn't happening? Who knows! What it does mean is that the issue IS in question, and when the global warming zeleots start claiming that the proof is undeniable, they are just adding to the distrust.
Ok, rant over....
Libertarianism is unworkable and deeply flawed. It, like Communism, relies on something that does not exist: the perfect human being. In order for Libertariansim to work all people must work towards their own elightened self interest. The problem is that's not how humans work.
This is interesting because it is a different way of looking at the same issue I have described before, and with much the same conclusions... but drastically different terminology. From everything I've read, economic extremism fails. Almost every economy is based upon communist cells of some size, operating competitively in a capitalist market, with some degree of socialism mitigating the gap between the very poor and very wealthy. What you refer to as communism, is in fact an economic system that has tried to enforce a very large communist cell size, with large amounts of socialism, and no internal capitalism. It is an extreme to try to eliminate capitalism and it fails, badly.
Libertarianism is a push for a smaller government that eliminates socialism and in some cases communism. It too fails, due to its extremism.
Your arguments about human nature are probably spot on. The balance of communism, socialism, and capitalism has developed in response to how humans operate and all reflect parts of human nature. Your assigning of a human that does not desire socialism as a "perfect" human does not jibe with my, personal opinions, but I think we're on different pages that read the same.
> Granted, the "new" equilibrium might be at a higher global-average temp and CO2 level than it was before
> we started burning oil and coal, but as soon as we settle in to whatever level that is, all the Chicken
> Littles out there can calm down about the "instability" of the biosphere.
Nope, wouldn't work. Because it is all a Big Lie, the average "Green" is actually what is known as a Watermelon, Green on the outside for cover but Red on the inside. Note that NO environmental problem has a suggested solution involving using technology to solve it. Sometimes they will advocate the use of tech as a shortterm mitigating factor while they get a treaty together to outlaw (but only in the West, can't deprive the "Developing world") whatever is pissing them off this week, but only as a stopgap. Each and every time their 'solution' involves A) lots more socialist government control and B) scaling back the 'excessive' consumption of Western Civilization. In actuality what they don't like is Western Civilization (i.e. individual liberty, capitialism and representitive governments) itself, the enviro whinging is just the latest thing they had success using to try and guilt trip us into rendering outselves extinct.
Democrat delenda est
That's not true, but it would have no relevance anyway. Who are you to tell someone they can't slip out the back door and relax with a cigarette?
This is true of alcohol as well, and many other products. Also, there are surgeon's general warnings on every pack of cigarettes informing people of the consequences.
From alcohol to chocolate to fast food, what you describe covers a wide range of products that you apparently feel should also be regulated. Aside from the fact that the government proves time and time again that it's inefficient at regulating anything, you're actually arguing for the government to "regulate" your life and your free will, putting the judgements of what is good and what is bad in the hands of politicans and legislators rather than the individual. If you don't like smoking, fantastic! Don't smoke, and avoid places that allow it. It's a very simple solution that doesn't involve imposing your decision on everyone else.
If the government gets a hold of a study proving a link between angry music and violent behavior, can the government start telling you not to get tattoos or listen to heavy metal for the good of society? Can they start banning other influences they deem negative to your health, such as controversial books and movies?
"I'll smoke, I'll get the cancer, I'll die. Deal? Thanks, AMERICA." - Bill Hicks
"Sufferin' succotash."
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
It's not only a sign of immaturity to return the accusations, but it does not make any sense at all to state that governments want to hear that global warming is within their responsibilities.
You think that a vague desire to destroy the world muwahaha, which scientists have because they're, y'know, mad scientists, somehow secretly pervading the entire scientific establishment, is a more plausible source of bias than, y'know, simple short-sighted greed?
Also, I see that you've failed to come up with anything other than vigorous hand-waving to back up your claims. Did you bother to read the last paragraph of the post that you replied to?
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Huh? Libertarianism doesn't rely on corporations even existing. Limited liability is just a government-enforced way to keep accountability from happening. Does using government force to prevent people from facing the consequence of their mistakes, sound like heartless libertarianism? ;-)
Incorporation could perhaps somehow be made compatible with libertarianism, but there would be a lot of tit-for-tat to work out.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
You know, someone who writes very intelligently in defence of a stupid argument is still closer to stupid than intelligent. It doesn't matter how many big words they use.
There's already enough hard proof that its beyond doubt that cigarette smoke, both first and second-hand, is carcinogenic.