View Single Post
Old 04-17-2013, 09:02 AM   #40
NewChief NewChief is offline
Greenbacker and Loving Liberal
 
NewChief's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Fayetteville, AR
Casino cash: $173008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saul Good View Post
That post came full circle. You start out talking about research money and then finish by implying that you can't trust those with a vested financial interest.

There isn't any money in saying that the sky isn't falling (if you're a researcher). What does that say for their motivations?
Really?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...hicalliving.g2
Quote:
The website Exxonsecrets.org, using data found in the company's official documents, lists 124 organisations that have taken money from the company or work closely with those that have. These organisations take a consistent line on climate change: that the science is contradictory, the scientists are split, environmentalists are charlatans, liars or lunatics, and if governments took action to prevent global warming, they would be endangering the global economy for no good reason. The findings these organisations dislike are labelled "junk science". The findings they welcome are labelled "sound science".

Among the organisations that have been funded by Exxon are such well-known websites and lobby groups as TechCentralStation, the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation. Some of those on the list have names that make them look like grassroots citizens' organisations or academic bodies: the Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, for example. One or two of them, such as the Congress of Racial Equality, are citizens' organisations or academic bodies, but the line they take on climate change is very much like that of the other sponsored groups. While all these groups are based in America, their publications are read and cited, and their staff are interviewed and quoted, all over the world.

By funding a large number of organisations, Exxon helps to create the impression that doubt about climate change is widespread. For those who do not understand that scientific findings cannot be trusted if they have not appeared in peer-reviewed journals, the names of these institutes help to suggest that serious researchers are challenging the consensus.

Also very interesting that it pairs the "denial industry" of oil with that of tobacco.... coincidentally two of AustinChief's pet topics?
__________________
In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican.
- H. L. Mencken
Posts: 19,008
NewChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.NewChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.NewChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.NewChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.NewChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.NewChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.NewChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.NewChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.NewChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.NewChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.NewChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.
  Reply With Quote