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.
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.
That's funny, whenever I do this sort of thing, the police keep calling it "fraud".
True, but the people who don't look at the evidence or think about the data are in the majority. They get all their information from these guys. They vote, too.
That's why this is bad - a bunch of rich guys are using the ignorant masses as a way to trade the future of the planet for their nth new mansion in some tax haven or other.
No sig today...
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".
The one thing that strikes me these days, is the way how the exact same people who solved the problems you are talking about - DDT, leaded gasoline, smog etc. - are still demonized and portait as plotting to destroy the earth.
They didn't solve those problems, they created them. They created the polluting products. DDT, leaded gasoline, cigarettes, CFC aerosols etc. Government regulation stopped them from manufacturing those polluting products anymore, or at least cut down on them. Without the government regulation they would have kept on polluting, and more so every year.
It's exactly the same now. They won't fix their polluting till government regulation makes them do so. And they are putting that government regulation off for as long as possible by denying science, just as they did before.
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.
People are funding client skeptics, and people are finding Climate Change studies.
You're right in that we have two groups - but only one is involved in actually science.
When you receive funding only when your "research" produces the desired results it becomes nearly impossible to have unbiased results. It becomes propaganda masquerading as research. To actually perform real research, the researcher must receive funding regardless of result.
The problem with the skeptics is that their "research", which is always biased, is taking away from the real research that is being done. When an outsider observes two publications making opposite claims, both publications are discredited. And if you ask that outsider which publication they believe, they will usually pick the one they want to be right - which is the one that says they can keep on burning oil.
The scientific community knows that climate change is real and that human activity is to blame. But the general populous does not partly because of the fake research and the arguments it spawns. So no, we shouldn't accept funding from all sides. Funding should only come from a neutral side - if the rich want to fund more they can donate funds to that neutral side.
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?
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.