Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Union of Concerned Scientists Unmasks the Global Warming Skeptics — Turns Out It's More Corporate Propaganda

Posted by Will Moredock on Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 3:39 AM

In his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore mentionedalmost incidentally that the the fossil fuel interests had set out to create a program of disinformation about global warming patternedon the tobacco industry's propaganda about the hazards of smoking. Big Tobacco's campaign of lies went on for decades, with the result that public opinion and the law were paralyzed from taking action to protect the public from cigarette smoke.

The same tactics and some of the same personalities are now in theemployee of ExxonMobile, which has been conducting its campaign of disinformation since the 1990s. The Union of Concerned Scientists have unmasked the scheme with their "ExxonMobile Report: Smoke, Mirrors and Hot Air." It is a devastating 64-page critique of corporate cynicism and irresponsibility and should be required reading for every member of Congress. See it here

And the next time you hear somebody spouting the ExxonMobile line onglobal warming, tell them you know where they got it and it's bullshit!The irony, of course, is that they will not know the source of their own bullshit. They will be mouthing the Limbaugh-Hannity-Beck-Ingraham line and assume that it is sacred writ. Don't let them get away with it.

Topics: National Politics

Tags:

  |  

Comments (8)

Showing 1-8 of 8

Add a comment

I admire your tenacity Mr. Moredock. In spite of reams of evidence that elevated CO2 induced AGW is the greatest hoax of all time, y'all keep with your party line.

Question: Would higher energy prices cause Big Energy to make more or less profit? Do you honestly believe that Exxon Mobile will "eat" the costs?

Big Energy will raise prices to offset the new costs, and maintain the same percentage margin for higher profits overall. If you really want to stick it to Big Energy, make them squeeze a margin out of $10 a barrel oil. "Green" energy in any meaningful quantities is decades away, and Big Energy is going to clean up on Cap and Trade in the interim.

If a company as large as Exxon Mobile was the only "green" energy provider, and they made huge profits from buying politicians and shaping government regulations to maintain a monopoly and fix prices, would you be for them, or against them?

One more question: If we are responsible for this round of warming, what caused all the other global warm ups and cool downs? (Look straight up at noon on a sunny day.) And if solar activity was responsible for all prior climate change cycles, why do "the models" account only for CO2 levels but not solar activity? The original paper from the 1970's on which this whole sham was based does not even mention solar activity as a contributing factor.

To see an objective debate on the subject between Al Gore and Lord Christopher Moncton, follow the link.

http://pathstoknowledge.net/2009/12/30/chr…

report   
Posted by I P Yuengling on December 31, 2009 at 3:43 PM

The answers to both of IP Yuengling's science based questions can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_…
As to his political questions, he is entitled to his opinion.

report   
Posted by FCB on December 31, 2009 at 5:08 PM

I suggest that you look to my posts under jack hunters ed. about this subject.
The science is far from concluded. Do some deeper journalistic investigation u would see there are "evil" corportations on both sides of the issue as well as scientists.
Don't you think this USocs might have some agendas also? Green is BIG bucks..billions even
Look into GE for example and Al gore himself. They stand to make billions of dollars. Al Gore may become the first "green" billionaire.
check the links i posted previously. I suggets evryone do some simple internet seraches on your own..your going to be suprised that this climate change agenda is
far from science fact !
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/
there is even some logical evidence that any change (if there is an answer) my be beyond man's reach ..http://www.climatechangefacts.info/Today-S…
Sunspots have been strangely absent for some time and science does seem to think there is a huge cooncection between solar activity and planetary climates.
Mars seems to be going thur some changes also...is that because they drive SUvs and rely on fossil fuels?

report   
Posted by artrogue on December 31, 2009 at 6:48 PM

Glad to see you are entertaining other possibilities for the causes of warming there, FCB. (A little Palin talk to drive you wild!)
The wikipedia article you reference does not answer the question about Big Energy's profit motive, and while it does inform on Earth's orbital and axial eccentricities, it does not mention solar activity.
If it is ever possible to fully understand Earth's climate, I suspect we will find that orbital and axial eccentricity of the planet, increased/decreased solar activity, geothermal and volcanic activity, and meteoric impacts with related atmospheric ejecta will turn out to be the major players.
I think it is a sign of mankind's vanity to think that we are powerful enough to cause significant damage to the planet or it's atmosphere. The planet lives and breathes on a scale that is difficult for most people to comprehend. The only true constant in the history of Earth is change. We may not be clever enough to survive our own technology, but the planet will surely outlast mankind, and continue to be a hospitable place for life to flourish, just as it was for the dinosaurs 100 million years ago.

report   
Posted by I P Yuengling on January 5, 2010 at 6:06 PM

I counter, Yuengling, that it is a sign of mankind's utter stupidity to suggest that our meddling over the last century or so has had no effect at all and that we can continue our little party of self-gratification because Charleston won't be underwater until most of us have passed on. Do you have kids? Grandkids?I suspect not. Your screen name clearly establishes your maturity level and your priorities.

report   
Posted by mofred on January 6, 2010 at 8:30 AM

I'd be very careful about using Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" or the The Union of Concerned Scientists as sources. The operative and suspicious words here are Truth and Union. Truth as Gore sees it is more irresponsible and susceptible to challenge than anything ExxonMobile puts out. The UCS single-mindedness is no better or less political than ExxonMobile's attempt to push a propagandized agenda.

report   
Posted by Guy on January 6, 2010 at 9:01 AM

The Union of Concerned Scientists? You're kidding, right? They're not scientists any more than you are, man. Anyone can join for 25 bucks. The underlying tragedy in this whole debate is the notion that everyone gets to have a say without the necessity of actually, you know, STUDYING the planet. Activism is a poor-ass substitute for expertise. Let me guess, next you're going to tell us "the science is settled".

report   
Posted by geophysicist on January 6, 2010 at 11:37 AM

Highly evolved reasoning there "mofred". Mankind bad, nature good. Why didn't I think of that? So living in suitable shelter, having enough food to eat, and developing technology to extend and improve the quality of my son's life and future prosperity is, as you put it, my "little party of self gratification".

I won't subscribe to a hoax based on junk science. If you wish to remain in the "save the planet" club, that is your prerogative, but as long as free speech is permitted, I will stand in opposition.

As to my screen name "mofred"; It is a standard playground tactic to belittle your opponent by name calling when you can't win the argument. Wouldn't the planet be better off with "lesfred", mofred? I think Ignacius Paul Yuengling is a fine german-american name, as did my parents.

I detest mankind's "utter stupidity", but for now, our constitution permits you to be as utterly stupid as you wish.

report   
Posted by I P Yuengling on January 7, 2010 at 2:38 PM
Subscribe to this thread:
By Email
With RSS
Showing 1-8 of 8

Add a comment

Classified Listings
{ more } Recent Comments
{ more } Reader Reviews

Powered by Foundation   © Copyright 2012, Charleston City Paper   RSS