While researching funding sources for my desire to produce an interactive television program about Global Warming, I found this from an independent/liberal web site, http://www.democracynow.org:
A new investigation by Mother Jones magazine has revealed that ExxonMobil has spent at least $8 million dollars funding a network of groups to challenge the existence of global warming. We speak with the author of the report, a member of one the organizations that receives money from Exxon and a journalist covering environmental and climate change issues.You can go to the site, http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/22/1338256&mode=thread&tid=25, to listen to an archived newscast that includes this discussion.
As is not atypical in U.S. politics, groups choose names that confuse the audience. For example, who do you think is behind http://www.globalwarming.org/? Well, it's certainly not people who are trying to educate the population about Global Warming and what to do about it. Instead, it cleverly has links to resources that challenge the position that we are experiencing Global Warming and that human activity is a major cause of the phenomenon. For an example, see http://www.cato.org/research/nat-studies/global-warming.html Here is a gem from globalwarming.com:
Consumer AlertWhat a great exercise for rhetoricians. The assumption that "reducing emissions would likely cause great economic damage" should be held up to scrutiny. The mainstream media have been very slow to take-up the Global Warming issue, but if you check English language news sites around the world, Global Warming is not portrayed as a "debate" but rather a problem that we need to address.
November 11, 2000
The Global Warming Debate [Debate?]
In 1992 the United States and nations from around the world met at the United Nations Earth Summit in Rio and agreed to voluntarily reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. The Rio Treaty was not legally binding and, because reducing emissions would likely cause great economic damage [emphasis added], many nations will not meet the goal.
The goal of the reactionaries to the science of Global Warming have cleverly cast it as a "debate." This debate would be about the same as the "debate" as to whether the sun rises in the east or rises in the west. Wired magazine ran a story last year about how some scientists are being paid off by "grants" from utilities to offset the "alarmist" Global Warming scientists http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2006/07/71486
This is discouraging because this site politicizes Global Warming. Is Global Warming really a political issue? The answer would seem to be "yes" to those who assume all the scientists in the world are part of a liberal underground that somehow wants to bring down the U.S. economy in particular by, presumably, taking all the cars and trucks off the highways for starters. What a shame that these otherwise bright people aren't putting their energies into developing profitable technologies that put less greenhouse gases into the air and maybe even remove it. If you are scratching your head about why there are so many skeptics about Global Warming, The Wichita Eagle asks the same question.
My question to the oil and coal industries is why are you so worried that addressing Global Warming is a threat to you? No one is predicting a reduction in the demand for energy globally, quite the contrary. Where is the corporate conscience on this issue? Any energy company that develops new technologies that reduce carbon emissions will be cheered by everyone, especially investors. Oh, well, all the CEOs once told a Congressional hearing that there was no link between smoking and lung cancer.
Image above courtesy of http://www.vincedorse.com/gallery/GlobalWarmingMyth.html.
