View topic - Secret funding supports climate denial network

It is currently September 20th, 2019, 1:23 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: February 18th, 2013, 8:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: December 29th, 2002, 7:00 pm
Posts: 6127
Location: Bancroft, Ontario Canada
No surprise here, more evidence from UK's Guardian.

Quote:
Secret funding helped build vast network of climate denial thinktanks

Anonymous billionaires donated $120m to more than 100 anti-climate groups working to discredit climate change science


Thursday 14 February 2013 13.39 GMT


Conservative billionaires used a secretive funding route to channel nearly $120m (£77m) to more than 100 groups casting doubt about the science behind climate change, the Guardian has learned.


The funds, doled out between 2002 and 2010, helped build a vast network of thinktanks and activist groups working to a single purpose: to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a highly polarising "wedge issue" for hardcore conservatives.

...

By 2010, the dark money amounted to $118m distributed to 102 thinktanks or action groups which have a record of denying the existence of a human factor in climate change, or opposing environmental regulations.


The money flowed to Washington thinktanks 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 ready stream of cash set off a conservative backlash against Barack Obama's environmental agenda that wrecked any chance of Congress taking action on climate change.

Those same groups are now mobilising against Obama's efforts to act on climate change in his second term. A top recipient of the secret funds on Wednesday put out a point-by-point critique of the climate content in the president's state of the union address.


And it was all done with a guarantee of complete anonymity for the donors who wished to remain hidden.


"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," said 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. There is no transparency, no accountability for the money. There is no way to tell who is funding them," Davies said.

...


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... ks-network

_________________
><((((º>


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: February 18th, 2013, 10:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: June 20th, 2001, 7:00 pm
Posts: 7513
Location: Scarbados, Ontario Canada
It's a propaganda war, fought by individuals and organizations in order to protect their monetary interests. And let's put it into perspective and look at the cost to humanity because we have been bamboozled:
Quote:
Climate change is expected to trigger a migration like no other.
Experts expect about 250 million people worldwide to move by 2050. Of those, 20 million to 30 million climate change refugees are expected to be in Bangladesh, likely the largest number from one place.

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/ ... dhaka.html
As a society, we are pretty much laid back about such mega horror. But as long there is no law that's being violated, there's no crime... Or is there?

_________________
“What is the good of having a nice house without a decent planet to put it on?” - Thoreau


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: February 18th, 2013, 10:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: December 19th, 2006, 8:47 pm
Posts: 8929
Location: Rattlesnake Pond ME
"to protect their monetary interests". Interesting since soon enough, should humanity render the world uninhabitable, money will be worthless.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: February 18th, 2013, 10:47 am 
Offline

Joined: January 22nd, 2005, 12:16 pm
Posts: 4033
Location: Toronto
Some ancient history (about a decade ago).

Considerable funding of climate-change denial (please don't call it research) was done openly by Exxon-Mobil and BP, among others.
Of local interest, a professor (Tim ?) at the University of Ottawa was funded by such companies.
In the US, some stellar sell-outs were Freeman Dyson and Frederick Seitz.
But those individuals were rare in the scientific community.
The American Enterprise Institute (which now accepts climate change) opposed it vigorously then.

The first speaker at the Wilderness and Canoeing Symposium this past weekend described what will happen in the next few decades to our far north.
It's a grim picture for those who love the Canadian Arctic. Some species, if they survive at all, may do so only in zoos.
See it, not so much (as used to be the case) while you physically able to do so, but rather while it exists in anything like its present form.

_________________

A literal mind is a little mind. If it's not worth doing to excess, it's not worth doing at all. Good enough isn't.  None are so blind as those who choose not to see. (AJ)



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: February 19th, 2013, 9:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: December 29th, 2002, 7:00 pm
Posts: 6127
Location: Bancroft, Ontario Canada
Erhard,

Quote:
As a society, we are pretty much laid back about such mega horror. But as long there is no law that's being violated, there's no crime... Or is there?


How about crime resulting from coal-related deaths... it's been known that coal use has been killing humans for a long time now, and I don't recall any legal action being taken against coal interests which no doubt have megabucks to safeguard their multinational status.

IIRC, the World Health Organization keeps records on death rates related to various forms of energy use... here's a googled source showing death rates on a global basis. I've heard in the news that about a billion humans will be affected by rising sea levels worldwide (Bangladesh being an especially hard-hit area)... if that's true, the death rates from fossil fuel use will rise much higher.


---------------------------

Deaths per terawatt-hour electricity generation:

Coal................435
Oil...................36
Natural Gas..........4
Hydro...............1.4
Wind.................0.15
Nuclear..............0.04


http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths ... ource.html


PS... amazing to me is the history of Mississauga residents here in Ontario, who never protested much against the coal-fired Lakeside power plant nearby (probably because they were used to it)... but when the new nat gas plant was being planned to replace Lakeside coal, they fought against that tooth and nail (and while heating their homes with nat gas at the same time).

_________________
><((((º>


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: February 19th, 2013, 10:00 am 
Offline

Joined: January 22nd, 2005, 12:16 pm
Posts: 4033
Location: Toronto
Interesting that death rates from nuclear generation are 1/10,000 those from coal generation.
I have no figure, but opposition to nuclear generation may be roughly 10,000 times that to coal generation.
If so, that's a ratio of something like 100,000,000.
How big a number is that? Well, atoms are ~3 times 10^(-8) cm wide, and so an inch spans about 100,000,000 atoms.
Hmmm.

_________________

A literal mind is a little mind. If it's not worth doing to excess, it's not worth doing at all. Good enough isn't.  None are so blind as those who choose not to see. (AJ)



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: February 19th, 2013, 10:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: October 24th, 2007, 1:52 pm
Posts: 556
Location: Beaumont, AB
frozentripper wrote:
---------------------------

Deaths per terawatt-hour electricity generation:

Coal................435
Oil...................36
Natural Gas..........4
Hydro...............1.4
Wind.................0.15
Nuclear..............0.04


Although "deaths per terawatt-hour electricity generation" is obviously not the only criteria that should be used in choosing an energy source, this does provide a very interesting way of looking at things.

_________________
Dave W
"Everyone must believe in something. I believe I'll go canoeing" - Henry David Thoreau


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: March 6th, 2013, 11:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: September 15th, 2006, 5:09 pm
Posts: 181
Location: Toronto, ON
Allan Jacobs wrote:
Interesting that death rates from nuclear generation are 1/10,000 those from coal generation. Hmmm.
Hmmm ...
The difference is really dramatic. So I suspect that these numbers are BS.

I tried to understand how these numbers were produced and found that explanation was too confusing.
Either these guys were not able to clearly present their reasoning or were trying to obfuscate their calculations on purpose.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: March 7th, 2013, 11:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: July 30th, 2006, 1:31 pm
Posts: 405
Location: Hamilton ON
Yury wrote:
The difference is really dramatic. So I suspect that these numbers are BS.
.

Numbers like those have been available for decades. Even if we quibble about the details, we shouldn't avoid the overall picture. Nuclear is the safest by far.
Power generation kills people. All kinds of power generation kill people.
The press will report on page 4 a natural gas explosion that kills dozens. Then will feature a fire in a storage shed 500m from a reactor as front page news.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group