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.'"
Make lobbying equal to bribery and throw the fuckheads in jail for life.
'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.
And don't forget the disinformation. We can't have all that freedom with an informed public.
Was there somebody who didn't know this was going on? Petrochemical plutocrats were obviously behind this. In many cases they didn't even bother to hide.
The secret billionaires are just trying to even the playing field against those fat cat scientists who are rolling in their trillions from government grants. Exxon is David against the NSF Goliath, man.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Let them purchase as much free speech as they like.
And let others exercise *their* free speech calling them out on how they choose to exercise it and what they choose to say- which is exactly what's being done here.
That said, when it's being exercised in such a non-transparent and intentionally misleading manner, I'd question whether it actually *is* even "free speech" in the first place.
You poor soul. You seem to think that convincing people of anything has to do with facts. The school of sophistry teaches us that he who makes the best sounding argument wins, and the facts be damned. If you want to be sure of a victory, appeal to basic emotions: anger, hatred, triumph...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I just finished reading the excellent novel "The Sheep Look Up", written in 1972 by John Brunner. I was amazed at the many parallels between the novel's dystopian vision and today's environmental issues. Even though some of the novel's environmental issues were mitigated (at least in the West) by education and regulation (DDT, leaded gasoline, smog, etc), many continue to this day. One thing that struck me particularly was the collusion of big business in denying that environmental issues exist and the draconian measures they went to to discredit and silence their critics. Also striking was government's powerlessness to act in the face of lobbying and bullying by big business.
A recommended read, as appropriate today as it was 40 years ago.
Address the facts, don't engage in ad hominem attacks.
Skeptics are not the problem. Skeptics address the facts and the data - and they are becoming more and more rare because the data is damning. It's the people electing and directing public policy. The real problem are the folks with "opinions" spoon fed to them by the lying, incompetent, and irresponsible media - ALL the MEDIA - but especially Fox News.
Listen to talk radio or watch Fox News sometime. I constanlty hear people (my neighbors) parrot what they say. They personally attack Al Gore and equate global warming with him. Actual facts or scientific data NEVER come up or if they do, it's a liberal conspiracy to tax more and for wealth transfer.
Ad Hominem attacks are perfectly "logical" to those people - actually to people in general (how many times have you seen people being called "fanboys", "scientologists", or whatever for having an unpopular opinion here!)
Add in the emotional hit of Liberal vs. Conservatives and BINGO you have a completely irrational response to an issue.
That's funny, whenever I do this sort of thing, the police keep calling it "fraud".
This. I'm one of the ones who really doesn't know what to believe, but every time I hear the term "denier" used in this amazingly offensive and inappropriate context I stop listening, because it makes it sound like the one saying it doesn't have actual dispassionate arguments and has to rely on ad hominem. I won't say I agree with the skeptics, but mocking them is the antithesis of science, not the defense of it.
Here's a longer, more nuanced verison of why crying "denier!" is anti-scientific.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
Wrong. Where corporations are concerned, in exchange for the limited liability and other special rights granted, which are not natural rights in the slightest, we as a society can demand accountability fr the money they spend and the lies they promote.
.
If a wealthy INDIVIDUAL wants to go buy propaganda shilling for their self interest against the rest of us, I can't stop that. The thing is, it's pretty hard to use money like that without being found out--that's its own check on excess. That we allow the funneling of cash through groups whose sole purpose is to hide it is called money laundering in any other context and should not be permitted here.
This is also yet another reason, as if we need more, why corporate entities should not be permitted to spend any money or resources at all on politics. They are creations of law. They have no natural right to exist, and that the Supreme Court throws out ANY restrictions on their political behavior given that is just a sad example of how far we've fallen.
That article completely misses the point of why we use terms like "denier". The deniers are not people who having legitimate qualms with the theories and data behind AGW. Those are skeptics and those are fine to have and indeed important in the scientific process. The deniers are the people who *know* that AGW is wrong, or believe that it has to be wrong because the consequences are antithetical to their worldview (e.g., the idea that there could actually be downsides to American capitalism and industry) or for some other reason that has nothing to do with the science. That's denialism. These people would never be convinced by any amount of evidence in favor of AGW. They don't even care. As such, they are correctly labelled deniers.
Now, perhaps some AGW fans are too broad with their use of the term, and perhaps some of them forget their own equivalents -- those people who just *know* AGW is right because capitalism is evil, facts or no facts. And that's a sad truth. That doesn't diminish or destroy the usefulness or correctness of the term "denier".
Here's the problem. There have been thousands of societies that at one point had the sort of "Liberty and Freedom" that you are talking about, where there was little or no government to "nanny" people. Do you know what happened to all of those societies? Power centralized, and freedom went away.
The thing that historically has made our country great is specifically the government. We fill the power vacuum with a democratically elected government so that some rich cabal of people can't take power and use it so their "freedom" is maximized and yours is minimized. The problem is obviously that if you let said cabals get enough influence, with mass media and the internet being what they are, they gain a new route to that tyranny anyway: buy enough public opinion and you can directly manipulate a democracy.
So every single person in this country should give much more than a rat's ass when stories like this come up, because they directly relate to people trying to break the system that has protected your liberty and freedom for hundreds of years. And this isn't really about parties. I think that the conservative movement in this country has some properties that make this sort of action happen more frequently from their direction, but we should be vigilant against similar manipulation from anybody.
I agree that Liberty and Freedom are what makes this country great. But right now, you are defending the Koch brothers' freedom to try to steal your freedom from you.
There's this game that "skeptics" of the scientific theory of Global Climate Change like to play.
They assume that climatologists have come to their conclusions (that the Earth is warming due to greenhouse gas emissions and human activity is partly responsible) because the scientists (they say) "were paid by people and governments to come to that conclusion".
While us "warmists" have been providing the scientific evidence; the "skeptics", on the other hand, argue politics "follow the MONEY!!!" (they say)
The problem is that when you do take their advice and the money leads to conservative billionaires, the Heartland Institute, Exxon Mobil (Fossil Fuel industries), and others who have a financial and political interest in denying the science of Climate Change:
All of a sudden the "skeptics" want us to forget about following the money!
Warning: This sig is not thread safe. For more information see Slashdot's sig policy.
No, I don't think it follows that strenuous denial of a thing is tantamount to secret tacit acceptance. That's like saying Richard Dawkins is secretly a theist because he's so vocal about not being one.
The real reason to question the sincerity of the denial by these billionaires is the stated aim: "We exist to help donors promote liberty which we understand to be limited government, personal responsibility, and free enterprise." They don't exist to promote science. They don't exist to even promote facts. They exist to promote a goal, and if facts and science interfere with said goal, they are to be cast aside. I consider myself to be mostly conservative and somewhat libertarian, but it seems that liberty minded people have trouble dealing with anything that is a global problem. A problem of such scope necessarily requires top down policy that is anathema to people who don't want to see any policy much less one with global aims. Because the solution to a global problem is unpalatable the response of such people is to deny the problem. It doesn't really matter that the issue is global warming. It may as well be an extinction level asteroid headed for central Africa. It's problematic nature would be denied until it can no longer be denied with one's own eyes (a point we appear to be reaching with global warming).
The reported $120 million is total funding, not what is spent on "climate."
Greenpeace annual spending (year ended 12/31/2010) -- $35 million
Al Gore's Climate Reality Project had revenues of $16 million and spent $25 million in 2010.
WWF, formerly The World Wildlife Fund, spent $243 million in 2012.
The US government has spent over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, education campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/climate_money.html
There's a lot of money floating around, most of it being spent by "warmers."
The article is misleading. Donations were giving anonymously to conservative think tanks. Many conservative think tanks are skeptical of human impact on climate change. These donations were not given directly the cause of deny climate change. This article seems to exist for the purpose to incite controversy where there is very little. Based on the comments on this site, I think it has been successful.
"No" doesn't mean "No" as the rather tired example of yelling fire in crowded theatres clearly establishes.
Perhaps you should research the history of that phrase. It was used by Oliver Wendell Holmes in the case of Schenck vs the United States. Charles Schenck was a draft protester during WWI. The government arrested him, and the case went to the Supreme Court. Holmes wrote the majority opinion, and ruled that since the government could banning shouting fire in the theater, then hey, it could ban other speech too! So Schenck went to prison. Using "shouting fire" as a justification for limiting speech is not only a slippery slope, it is a slope we have slid down before.
There are also libel/slander laws passed by congress that limit free speech
Libel/slander laws do not limit speech. They can only be applied after the fact. So you can be held responsible for what you say or write, but you cannot be restrained from saying it in the first place.
It is fine that everyone can have their say.
The real problem we're facing is that the 'say' you get with billions in corporate money is worth more than the 'say' you and I get as individuals.
You can have your say, I can have mine, but when ExxonMobile speaks they blanket the airwaves.
The Koch family billions also go to business schools, provided they let them make faculty appointments. How many faculty appointments have you made recently?
Corporations use our own money against us and have a bigger say in government and policy.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
The climate will keep changing regardless.
You speak as though you are positive there is parity in the amount of funding and lack of transparency. I have not seen data to either support or refute that hypothesis so it seems like pure conjecture. I am aware of individual funders such as Al Gore and George Soros but two famous sources doesn't mean there is parity.
One can't prove a negative, someone will always say that you just haven't found it yet. But proving the positive is possible so if someone can, please do.
Note that a major goal of the groups discussed in the article is to generate a sense of false equivalency in public opinion such that nothing is ever done.
For a long time, it was easier to attack the science (a flanking maneuver).
Then don't be surprised that those people are still viewed as being dishonest deniers.
Increasingly, you will see a change to battling it out over policy - which was the proper place for this debate the entire time.
I created the following some years ago. I've been amused as the mass of the denialist rhetoric has followed through it step by step. They don't get any more respect for having done so.
The Republican 9 Step Global Warming Denial Plan
1) There's no such thing as global warming.
2) There's global warming, but the scientists are exaggerating. It's not significant.
3) There's significant global warming, but man doesn't cause it.
4) Man does cause it, but it's not a net negative.
5) It is a net negative, but it's not economically possible to tackle it.
6) We need to tackle global warming, so make the poor pay for it.
7) Global warming is bad for business. Why did the Democrats not tackle it earlier?
8) ????
9) Profit.
I am just going to say this every time climate change is discussed from now on:
The climate change debate is a giant distraction that only serves the interests of those destroying the environment.
At first it was 'is it happening?' then it was 'are we causing it?' and now we have discussions about the magnitude and the exact quantification, about whether it is a debate or not, about whose fault it is.
Scientists have been saying for decades now 'we are destroying the environment we live in, it is unsustainable and if we don't curb this trend it will become critical.'
Finding a new way to argue about one specific element of this problem is just another way of avoiding discussing the many things we already know are a problem, and finding solutions. The debate used to be about deforestation, fish stock depletion, groundwater and ocean pollution, unsustainable farming practices etc. After the climate debate is done and settled someone will come up with a new thing to argue about, maybe radio frequency or visible light pollution, or whatever, who knows. The point is we know we are doing things wrong, we have known for ages, why are we still arguing about it?
These are the facts: The proliferation and industrialisation of the human race is having massive consequences for the earth and the environment, the changes are cumulative and usually either detrimental or unpredictable in their effects. These changes are greatly exacerbated by the unsustainable, greedy and ultimately unnecessary excesses of our consumerist society.
Does anyone want to dispute these facts? Does anyone wish to make the claim that it would be better to exactly quantify in perfect detail every aspect and facet of each of the ways in which we are causing harm before taking any steps whatsoever to rectify any of them?
Can we start doing something about it some time soon, please?
While politics and media commentary rule the blogs and airspace, Science get shredded into worthless dribble. Climate Science needs to be taken seriously and not turned into media spectacle. The problem is, the real stuff can be quite boring and mostly looked over. Stories about carbon levels, thermal convection and greenhouse gasses are not read by the majority of readers. Most of the media today is sensationalized and pumped with soundbites to increase readership. Just about every attempt by Al Gore to pass along data his group has collected is countered with disinformation. You never see an attempt to deflate some missed data and provide what the other group thinks is more realistic, We only see a polar opposite approach the just discredits each view and the public takes these battles to the office and public places. Even with all this funding the real Science does tend to get heard by the people that need to hear it. I've noticed over the years how changes have taken place that are more indirect approaches to reduce climate change. Many businesses are reducing consumption of power, most say it's to increase profits by reducing waste. Recycling programs have been around for at least four decades now but it's just starting to catch on due to waste elimination costs. Meanwhile these same corporations are funneling money into the disinformation channels. The real question becomes, why are we wasting money on propaganda when that money would better to be spent in fixing the problems.
ShanghaiBill somehow got modded to +4 Insightful for blathering:
we as a society can demand accountability
Please don't use weasel words. You shouldn't say "we as a society" when you really mean "the government", and you shouldn't say "demand accountability" when you really mean "censor speech".
Exactly how is requiring groups who engage in lobbying and who presume to weigh in on scientific debate to reveal their actual sources of funding censoring speech in any meaningful sense of the phrase? The overwhelming majority of climate scientists who publish papers that conclude our climate is, in fact, changing (and that the change is largely or exclusively due to human-generated greenhouse gases) and the institutions for which they work make their sources of funding public. Why shouldn't the government require deniers - especially those specifically engaged in high-pressure lobbying of elected officials on the subject - to reveal where their financing comes from? Because they have some supposed divine right to anonymity?
Somehow the phrase "fair and balanced" springs instantly to mind ... and not in a good way.
Check out my novel.
And now, all the data is in the public, but there is a profound lack of climate models contradicting the ones used by the IPCC. As ever, there are some differences about the details, and a lot of people delightful point out that there are models predicting 4.2 degree temperature increase and others predicting only 2.5 degree. But that's basicly complaining about the wet paint not being completely even on the building. It doesn't break the building down.
So please tell me: Now, that all raw data the IPCC is basing the climate model on, is out in the public, why are there no competing models out there? Maybe, just maybe, it's because the raw data actually points to an AGW? And futhermore: Why is it that only the U.S., Russia and China seem not happy with the results of the IPCC, and the population of all other countries seem to agree that the models are quite correct, and actually describing what they are seeing?
Maybe, just maybe, it has something to do with the respective ideologies in all three countries, for which the mere existance of an AGW is dangerous, and thus all the prophets of the ideologies try everthing to make even the aknowledgment about facts unhappen by crying wolf and starting ad hominem attacks (you know, "characteristics of a cult" - purely an ad hominem attack without any argument supporting it) against people actually knowing what they are doing?
So basicly: Put up, e.g. provide better models based on the raw data (which is aviable since 2006), or shut up!
Funding for climate orthodoxy 10 times more? You must be including the cost of building and launching satellites, the cost of thousands of weather stations, over 3,000 Argo floats and all the other instrumentation used to study climate, the cost of gathering and collating all of that data, the cost of supercomputer time to help analyze it, etc, etc, etc. That's all basic science that you can't really attribute to one side or the other. You can argue that we're doing too much or too little of it but it needs to be done at some level. I guess you can argue that it's biased toward one side but I think the diversity of scientists and scientific institutions around the world make that extremely unlikely.
Unless you know something I don't there was one paper recently with 4 or 5 authors that found a climate sensitivity below 2. It is a useful addition to the literature but by itself doesn't overturn all of the other work that's been done. There are a number of methodologies for determining climate sensitivity and it's not clear which if any are best. It's an area that continues to receive a lot of attention.