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.
The site says
About this Talk
With the same humor and humanity he exuded in An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore spells out 15 ways we can address climate change, from buying a hybrid car to inventing a hotter brand name for global warming. First, though, comes a hilarious set of stories from The New Gore, who turns out to be a stand-up comedian. The former Vice President has plenty of joke material, and he's funnier than you've ever seen him. Then he gets down to grittier matters with a list of actions ordinary people can take to stem the tide of global warming. His message: Doing something is easier than you think.
In addition, the Pew Research Center found that conservatives are far less concerned about global warming than liberals. Although it comes as no surprise, when I consider it I would like to better understand why conservatives are far more sanguine about global warming than liberals. Some probable answers are the misperceptions that addressing global warming means more government spending and, therefore, an issue conservatives would rather ignore or, perhaps worse, discredit. As I recall Al Gore explaining when he ran for president in 2000, the irony here is that there is money to be made in the private sector by companies that work on technologies to "fight" global warming such as any technologies that reduce the introduction of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and technologies (including plants) that will help suck CO2 out of the atmosphere. I invite the experts to comment here on technologies to lower carbon emissions, and the one elephant in the living room are the oceans that cover 2/3 of the earth. Perhaps they hold the key, but I won't pretend to be an expert on oceans and CO2. I plan to become one, however.
Think you've been hearing a lot about global warming lately? If a new climate-focused group hatched by Al Gore has its way, you ain't seen nothin' yet.It is my personal desire to "get certified" as an expert on "climate change" but the last I checked, the Gore folks had been overwhelmed with recruits and they weren't taking any more. I will see if I can climb about the train anyway (and remember, it's always better to climb on board the train than to get run over by it).
After nine months of behind-the-scenes planning and wrangling, the Alliance for Climate Protection is now nearly ready for prime time. Gore spoke about the alliance in an exclusive interview with Muckraker. He said the group aims to raise big bucks for a single goal: "To move the United States past a tipping point on climate change, beyond which the majority of the people will demand of the political leaders in both parties that they compete to offer genuinely meaningful solutions to the crisis."
"Why is climate changing?"I've mentioned earlier my personal criticism of The Weather Channel as a huge player in the Global Warming discourse that has also been extremely cautious about "climate change." Now they are running "Storm Stories" that include mini-documentaries about climate change. This is good news.Climate has changed throughout geological history, for many natural reasons such as changes in the sun’s energy received by Earth arising from slow orbital changes, or changes in the sun’s energy reaching Earth’s surface due to volcanic eruptions. In recent decades, humans have increasingly affected local, regional, and global climate by altering the flows of radiative energy and water through the Earth system (resulting in changes in temperature, winds, rainfall, etc.), which comprises the atmosphere, land surface, vegetation, ocean, land ice, and sea ice. Indeed, strong observational evidence and results from modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human activities are a major contributor to climate change.
Journalist Reiss takes us to the front lines of some of the decade's most destructive storms and describes global warming through the eyes of those most involved—researchers, meteorologists, and the families that have been affected. A frightening, enlightening, and fascinating portrait of climate changes and its impacts. Check price/buy book.Source: World Future Society Book Store, http://www.wfs.org/bkblurbs.htm#malthus, accessed 26 August 2007.
I posted this because I was on the WFS web site, but it's probably a better idea to post books that try to discount or refute global warming, because those authors and their followers are unlikely to pursue lifestyle changes that all of us need to proactively begin to change.
