Big Tobacco Funded Anti-Global Warming Messages 623
An anonymous reader writes, "The UK Guardian is running an excerpt from the new book "Heat" by George Monbiot (to be published later this month) spelling out the network of funding opposing global action against global warming — specifically, limits on human carbon dioxide generation. The excerpt outlines a web of fake citizens' groups and bogus (but authoritative sounding) research institutes designed to convince laypeople that human causation of global warming is scientifically controversial. Not surprisingly, the article notes funding by ExxonMobil. More interesting is the role played big tobacco, tying their attack on the health risks of second-hand smoke to global warming skepticism." From the article: "What I have discovered while researching this issue is that the corporate funding of lobby groups denying that man-made climate change is taking place was initiated not by Exxon, or by any other firm directly involved in the fossil fuel industry. It was started by the tobacco company Philip Morris."
Re:Global Warming Fanatics Do the Same (Score:0, Interesting)
Yes, it's a terrible thing when you promote your position on a scientific matter by showing that a large body of scientific experts involved in researching that matter agree with you. Golly. That's just so deceptive. Exactly the same as setting up fake experts and touting them on the same levels as the real ones.
You could really benefit from some of those reports, apparently. If you actually bothered to inform yourself with them (or on the subject at all) you'd know that global warming refers to a worldwide average and so pockets of cooling are irrelevant.
Actually, I lied, they're not irrelevant, they're a fully expected and predictable part of global warming.
But don't mind me. You have ridiculously uninformed ranting to get modded up. Who needs facts when you have political agenda to adhere mindlessly to?
Re:Global Warming Fanatics Do the Same (Score:5, Interesting)
A better term would be 'accelerated global climate change'. And it is the accellerated part that is important. Where in the past ecologies may had had time to adapt to change, if it is too rapid humans and the species they depend upon may not be able to adapt.
However, 'accelerated global climate change' makes for an awkward sound bite.
Re:Really questioning my libertarian streak nowada (Score:4, Interesting)
I think you mean to say that in an ideal world, the market *participants* have perfect information. Participants in markets don't need to have perfect information for markets to be preferable to other methods of distribution. Communism (for example) doesn't become superior because you have to call around town to find the best price, and you decide to stop searching before you've called them all, in other words.
Let's say... (Score:2, Interesting)
1) Given that the "secondhand-smoke" hysteria genuinely was shoddy pseudoscience as a pretext to legislate lifestyle, how useful is it to tie global warming to it? Or am I supposed to read about Big Tobacco, think "Ohmigod, it's *big*!" and fall under my desk in terror?
2) So does Big Oil (Aaaugghhh! Under the desk!!!) get some sort of apology now that it turns out that these groups were actually some sort of bizarre tobacco PR scheme?
Re:Global Warming Fanatics Do the Same (Score:2, Interesting)
If big tobacco was smart (and I'm sure they are), they would play both sides of the game. Like for instance, big tobacco would do studies to support the claim the global warming exists, screw up the study, and get this to be one of the top studies that people use when trying to prove that global warming exists. They aren't going to do any damage to their cause because there would already be valid scientific studies out there. They are just replacing the valid scientific studies with crappy studies. If you can't beat your enemy, replace them with something you can beat.
Re:Really questioning my libertarian streak nowada (Score:3, Interesting)
Mod Parent -1 Troll (Score:3, Interesting)
Where did you get that little "data point" from? The drastic swings indicated by ice core samples are so far back they're from PRE-history.
It must be tough being a conspiracy theorist when most of your targets of blame never get any more specific than "the left" (i.e. scientists) and have almost no assets or power worth speaking of compared to the ultra-wealthy interests trying to discredit them.
EPA Study (Score:2, Interesting)
Even with the lower confidence interval (p value or poisson ratio inverted), the EPA was only able to show a Relative Risk (correlation) of 1.19. Everyone run for the hills.
Even First Hand smoke is a little dubious. As JEB at numbewatch puts it, saying that smoking causes cancer is like that fertilizer cause tomatoes to grow. Using the same statistics that make the CDC say that 400,000 people each year die prematurely from smoking, you can say that 200,000 people each year are saved by smoking. The calculation is fraudulent, irrelavent and insulting.
Mr. Brigness of Numberwatch [numberwatch.co.uk] would love to be on the payroll of any of those illustrious companies, but he just keeps fighting irrational numbers because he is ornery, not because he has a financial axe to grind. Actually he does, he just doesn't get to see the money flow into his coffers.
Remember the Global Warming industry is rolling to the tune of $2.5 Billion. But it doesn't matter if they have fiscal motivation for crying wolf.
This is a crowd of programmers. Don't we have people here who have experience dealing with non-linear coupled models. We did a project in Engineering to model a Cross-flow heat exchanger inside a building. The dynamics of X-Flow are moderately well understood. 20 students made 20 models we had 20 solutions with different outputs, no correlation whatsoever. The professor was stumped. He failed to recognize that when you start approximating Nusselt, Prandl, Russel, and several other factors, you are pretty much screwed especially when they are all hinged upon each other. That was in a contained system. One in which all boundary conditions have been specifically defined. Got news for the Global Circulation Modelers, they aint got that.
Manipulating bitches, all of em (Score:3, Interesting)
And the same asshats are gearing up to make McD's change their menu to reflect their 'enlightened notions' of what you should be eating. Of course these same dipshits are also trying to decide what sort of unsafe at any speed piece of plastic crap car you 'want' to drive in the name of 'global warming' while THEY fly their fucking private jets to (press) conferences to announce what they want to impose on us tomorrow, for our own good of course.
And anyway, Today's Daily Hate thread points to an article in the fscking Guardian.... my what a reliable source that is, why not just link to Daily Kos guys, he is probably a more credible source!
And yes, reasonable people CAN question both A) the existence of Global Warming and B) whether any/all of any Global Warming which might exist is caused by humans. Personally I'm leaning more to the some Global Warming is happening but with the observed increase in solar output (and evidence of warming on Mars) that it is mostly natural. But if it can be shown that it is going to get bad enough we should meddle in Gaia's 'plan' and do something artifical to lower the temp a bit, perhaps a space based solar shade.
Re:Common agenda (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I still do not believe in Global Warming ! (Score:2, Interesting)
Remember, they actually analyze the little gas bubbles for CO2 concentrations, the error level in these analyses is relatively small as they are taking direct measurements, not inter/extrapolating from indirect measurement techniques (like tree rings, or relative biomass deposits in sediment).
My point: You can trust ice core readings. Don't question the peer-reviewed articles funded by NSF, grants, DOE, etc; instead, question the stuff funded by corporations.
Re:Really questioning my libertarian streak nowada (Score:1, Interesting)
You show your profound ignorance about the behavior of chaotic systems.
I may not be able to predict whether it will be raining seven days from now.
But I can predict something about the weather 10000 years in the future: It will be warmer on average in the summer than it is in the winter. This is based on the supposition that in 10000 years, locations undergoing summer will still receive more solar energy than locations undergoing winter.
The predictions that climate scientists are making are based on trends. Keep more heat in the system, and the climate will warm. Carbon dioxide is a gas that traps heat energy in our atmosphere. This is a fact. Carbon dioxide is increasing in concentration in our atmosphere. This is a fact. The climate is warming. This is a fact.
As for the economic question, I would ask you this: How does it benefit the economy when we waste energy? How does it benefit the economy when we live in houses that bleed energy to the outside? How does it benefit the economy when those who create our buildings ignore proven and viable technology that could improve energy efficiency by huge amounts (e.g. geothermal heat sinks, passive heating and cooling technologies)?
Please tell me, are you being paid to write these things? Because if you are not, perhaps you should be. In some ways, your message is quite well crafted, and links very nicely with the PR campaign being waged by the energy industry. If I were waging a publicity campaign against action on global warming, I think it would be very effective to hire a few dozen full time employees to post message to discussion boards like Slashdot. After all, these messages are read by tens or hundreds of thousands of people.
Re:Really questioning my libertarian streak nowada (Score:3, Interesting)
And FYI, extreme Democrat != socialist. On most issues, I consider myself a pretty extreme democrat, but I am not a socialist. I support some sort of national health care system, and a strong social safety net, but I am a small business owner and capitalist.
It is interesting how negative connotations attached to words can cause people to try to redefine them. For example, you claim adamantly to not be a socialist, and then describe several socialist programs you support. Socialism is simply society as a whole contributing to provide some level of support to all of society. Socialized heath care is socialism. Public schools are socialism. Libraries are socialism. Police forces are socialism. Subsidized housing is socialism. Almost all charities are privately funded socialism.
Socialism is an inherent part of human nature, for the whole society to help its members out. Everyone is a socialist to some degree, it is just a matter of how much socialism and what types an individual supports. Libertarianism has, as a common principal, no government involvement in socialism (resulting in drastically reduced socialism). In a country like the US, which already has less socialism than most industrialized nations and which most economists agree is has lower standards of living and greater crime as a result of that, this is an extreme economic position to take.
Now I don't want to start a discussion of political parties stated platforms and functional platforms, but the Democratic party both in principal and in action does support socialism... they just go to great pains to never call it that for PR reasons. The Republican party also supports socialism, albeit different programs and likewise avoids calling it that. I caution you, don't confuse political posturing for reality and public relations with science. It is very easy in these days of mass misinformation campaigns.