Are Petrochemical Plutocrats funding a network of Climate Change Deniers?

[Dr. Zaus]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/donors-trust-climate-denial

Whitney Ball, chief executive of the Donors Trust, told the Guardian that her organization assured wealthy donors that their funds would never by diverted to liberal causes.

"We exist to help donors promote liberty which we understand to be limited government, personal responsibility, and free enterprise," she said in an interview.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/14/mississippi-river-shipping-levels

IMHO:

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.

Are Petrochemical Plutocrats funding a network of Climate Change Deniers? Or are they just giving voice to a repressed minority of scientists?

 

[sandorski]

I bet they don't extend "Personal Responsibility" to themselves.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

PBS interview with Dr. Brulle:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...le-inside-the-climate-change-countermovement/

 

[Dr. Zaus]

PBS interview with Dr. Brulle:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...le-inside-the-climate-change-countermovement/

"The tobacco industry was faced with a real problem in that the scientific evidence that smoking was related to cancer was very clear, and that if that was applied, that basically would devalue their product immensely. So they formulated the strategy of sowing doubt about the scientific validity of the connection between smoking and cancer.

They had their own experts testifying about the doubts and the incompleteness of the scientific data regarding smoking and lung cancer, and they developed organizations that would promulgate these ideas through the media. They developed the initial strategy of selling doubt in the face of scientific certainty to prevent action.

That strategy is exactly what you see in the climate countermovement. They use the same organizations, the same tactics, and try to sow doubt about climate change as a real, serious environmental issue."

Prema Facia this looks to be exactly what's up.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

It was also largely the same thing with the CFC's & ozone "controversy." There was a really good documentary on this also from PBS that I'm unable to find. Even some of the same busted arguments are popping back up like the effect conveniently offsetting a natural cooling period.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

It was also largely the same thing with the CFC's & ozone "controversy." There was a really good documentary on this also from PBS that I'm unable to find. Even some of the same busted arguments are popping back up like the effect conveniently offsetting a natural cooling period.

To be fair, a large part of the ozone hole is cyclical; just as a large part of climate change is cyclical. Further, C02 is good not a bad thing, as it helps plants flourish.

I think it's importnat to recognize, and accept, the valid arguments of those you disagree with so that they are better able to accept where you stand.

 

[sandorski]

It was also largely the same thing with the CFC's & ozone "controversy." There was a really good documentary on this also from PBS that I'm unable to find. Even some of the same busted arguments are popping back up like the effect conveniently offsetting a natural cooling period.

This one?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

This one?

Maybe that was it and the CFC piece was contained within. Thanks for the link, I'll try to watch it later.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

To be fair, a large part of the ozone hole is cyclical; just as a large part of climate change is cyclical. Further, C02 is good not a bad thing, as it helps plants flourish.

Too bad we're also killing trees at a record pace.

Atmospheric CO2 levels are steadily rising. Whatever good CO2 is doing for trees, it's become too much of a good thing.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Too bad we're also killing trees at a record pace.

Atmospheric CO2 levels are steadily rising. Whatever good CO2 is doing for trees, it's become too much of a good thing.

I've never heard this argument; but it makes intuitive sense. Do you have some sources that can back up your argumentation?