Slashdot Mirror
Billionaires Secretly Fund Vast Climate Denial Network
Hugh Pickens writes writes "Suzanne Goldenberg reports that conservative billionaires used a secretive funding route to channel nearly $120 million to more than 100 groups casting doubt about the science behind climate change, helping build a vast network of think tanks and activist groups working to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a highly polarizing 'wedge issue' for hardcore conservatives. 'We exist to help donors promote liberty which we understand to be limited government, personal responsibility, and free enterprise,' says Whitney Ball, chief executive of the Donors Trust. Ball's organization assured wealthy donors that their funds would never by diverted to liberal causes with a guarantee of complete anonymity for donors who wished to remain hidden. The money flowed to Washington think tanks embedded in Republican party politics, obscure policy forums in Alaska and Tennessee, contrarian scientists at Harvard and lesser institutions, even to buy up DVDs of a film attacking Al Gore. 'The funding of the denial machine is becoming increasingly invisible to public scrutiny. It's also growing. Budgets for all these different groups are growing,' says Kert Davies, research director of Greenpeace, which compiled the data on funding of the anti-climate groups using tax records. 'These groups are increasingly getting money from sources that are anonymous or untraceable.'"
So since you are also trying to influence politicians (by posting this message), should you also be thrown into jail for life? Lobbying is just telling politicians what your interests are. Which is necessary and healthy in a democracy (in moderation!).
That is not to say that was is going on here is right. But you can't just blanket condemn all "lobbying".
as opposed to the billions Soros and Gore's cronies are lobbying (lying) with...
does Al Gore get to go to prison too for his ridiculous anti-science movie and his support of cap and trade scams?
I'm a climate change skeptic. I doubt much of the science being touted that "proves" mankind is responsible for climate change. That doesn't mean I don't care.
I want to see space exploration and space colonization turned on, and turned up. Send all my kids into space, where they can waste all the energy they like, and not affect earth's biosphere. I care - really, I care. In a few generations, maybe you can hire some of my kids to place mirrors between the earth and the sun, to deflect some of that excess energy. Maybe they'll beam all that (otherwise wasted) energy to the dark side of the moon, enabling industry to run all "day" long on the moon! Think of it - industrial centers running 24/27.7 on clean solar energy! Everyone wins! Honest to God, I care!
Stop wasting time on climate change, and invest in space. Everyone wins!
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Right, let's just do away with that inconvenient First Amendment. Can't be having people speak freely, bring their concerns to the government, or assemble peacefully to discuss matters that concern them. Might as well, we've already tossed just about all of the Bill of Rights in the dust bin. About the only one that remains is the Third Amendment. These people believe in limited government and free enterprise, and they want to bring that concept to the District of Criminals. Perhaps they have the right idea but the wrong motivation.
The concept is that the carbon output from human activity is causing global climate change that is dangerous to future human activity of any kind. So, the government "solutions" so far have been to subsidize corn ethanol, windmills, electric cars, and solar panels.
What we got from that are electric cars that start fires, don't move (as in need to have a forklift pick it up onto a flat bed truck since the wheels locked up), or are so expensive that only the hated "1%" can buy them. We get battery manufacturers that get government money but don't produce any batteries. We have government funded solar panel companies that, if they actually produce a solar panel, can get only government agencies to actually buy them.
We have corn ethanol mandated in our fuel which raise the price we pay for our fuel, have a tendency to damage certain vehicles, and have a reduction in CO2 output that is pathetic if it even exists. The consumption of corn by our cars means the food that we consume costs more since, as it turns out, people eat corn too. Since fuel companies are mandated to buy corn ethanol there is no motivation to actually reduce the price.
I could keep going on how the lack of a free market is doing little to nothing to actually reduce our carbon output. Some freedom returned to the marketplace is more likely to do more good for the climate than what we have now.
We could be building nuclear power plants, but the government won't let us. We could be using sugar beets or switch grass as bio-fuels but the government does not make that profitable. Perhaps if we introduced some real competition in the markets we'd see some real development in windmill technology. As it is right now the windmill manufacturers make money whether or not the windmills actually produce any electricity.
I believe we have a long way to go with solar power and electric cars before they are viable outside some very narrow niche markets. Instead of the government paying people to make products that don't work, and therefore do nothing for the environment, I'd suggest we let the market decide what is both profitable and has a lower carbon output.
The government has a poor history of picking winners in the market. The government has a poor history of picking winners in anything. Might have something to do with the fact that winners in the market don't need a government hand out to make a profit. The government can only pick losers in the economy. So long as the government is funding it then it won't work.
I say that if we want the climate to improve then get the government out of the climate business.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
So the Tea Party is just astro-turfing? Yet the Occupy Wall Street is grass roots?
It is more a matter whether your Ox is being GORED! (Pun intentional!)
Have you compiled your kernel today??
It's not fine. If they're knowingly lying in order to deceive others into taking actions that benefit the liar, that is textbook fraud.
There has never been "free speech" as you think it is. You can't say whatever you want, whenever you want, for any reason.
This is exactly the problem that sceptics have with proponents.
Ever since climate raw data was denied to people who had the effrontery to look for mistakes, the AGW movement has taken on the classic characteristics of a cult . Advocates who would deny critical response by saying "you can't say whatever you want" simply reveal one more facet.
Share that sentiment. Why the slander. The funding for the climate orthodoxy is more than 10 times that. Considering how many scholars lately have come out of the closet and declared that the IPCC position is all but insupportable and climate sensitivity is nowhere near 3.5 degrees per doubling of CO2. Of course, this automatically puts into question the runaway hypothesis and with it the doom burn in hell agenda.
It's sad to see the zealotry of climate activism is perpetuated on this site which I believe used to stand of something more open minded than bashing of those who do not adhere to the agenda put forward by big business and big government.
The corn ethanol, windmills, electric cars, and solar panels are just smokescreens. They also allow distribution of money to friends of politicians, but that's just a side effect. What the "solution" is, in the minds of the environmentalists, is to reduce human activity in the first place. Whatever practical solution anyone comes up with to produce power, they will be opposed to for one reason or another. Even if it's as silly as "reducing the albedo of the desert".
yes i do want to dispute one fact : that making the planet better for humans at the expense of all other life is not somehow better for humans. thats what out consumerist society is doing. is it unsustainable ? i dont know. is it greedy ? damn right. is it unnecessary ? go back to living in a cave while i keep living in my suburbia heated home with my giant SUV and boat and RV parked in the front lawn.
A solid argument. I have a short, and perhaps rude retort. When those who state this is a dire situation start behaving like it is a dire situation, I will consider the argument. If Al Gore, Leo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, et. al. are going to be held up as paragons of truth, who bring the message to the masses, then they damn well better live by their rules. If they won't or can't, then I won't consider this to be a serious threat, and that those who say it is are only mewling to control our way of life.
is it that bad seein a hot chick again? if i see a hot chick walkin down the hall i dont say "repost"