Jump to content
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?
IGNORED

Lobbying and AGW


Roo

Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: St. Albans, Herts
  • Location: St. Albans, Herts

This has been alluded to in other threads, but I thought it might deserve a thread of it's own.

There is mounting evidence that global policy is being influenced, but not necessarily by those who have been so far accused on these boards...

http://www.spinwatch.org/content/view/4104/8/

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/scien...anizations.html

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/gl...y/exxon-secrets

http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=289

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006...petrol.business

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/eu...ing-427404.html

Having had so much discussion of the bias of IPCC scientists, the MetO, etc, etc, I thought it was about time we levelled the playing field a little.

With hugely wealthy trans-national oil companies, etc having a vested interest in disproving AGW, is it not possible that the most influential bias/propaganda/lobbying being done benefits the skeptics, rather than the proponents, of AGW?

And, if so much money has been poured into this, how come they still can't find any solid evidence to disprove the findings of the IPCC?

Edited by Roo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Thame, Oxfordshire
  • Location: Thame, Oxfordshire
This has been alluded to in other threads, but I thought it might deserve a thread of it's own.

There is mounting evidence that global policy is being influenced, but not necessarily by those who have been so far accused on these boards...

http://www.spinwatch.org/content/view/4104/8/

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/scien...anizations.html

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/gl...y/exxon-secrets

http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=289

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006...petrol.business

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/eu...ing-427404.html

Having had so much discussion of the bias of IPCC scientists, the MetO, etc, etc, I thought it was about time we levelled the playing field a little.

With hugely wealthy trans-national oil companies, etc having a vested interest in disproving AGW, is it not possible that the most influential bias/propaganda/lobbying being done benefits the skeptics, rather than the proponents, of AGW?

And, if so much money has been poured into this, how come they still can't find any solid evidence to disprove the findings of the IPCC?

Blogs, anti-capitalist environmental pressure group and Socialist newspapers. To me, hardly surprising or convincing.

Edited by Mr Sleet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: St. Albans, Herts
  • Location: St. Albans, Herts
Blogs, anti-capitalist environmental pressure group and Socialist newspapers. To me, hardly surprising or convincing. Today's headline in the Independent said it all- " No Ice at North Pole" :o

So, from that dismissive comment, I assume you do not agree that there is any form of anti-AGW lobbying on the part of the oil companies?

Would it help if I posted some less socialist ( :o ) newspaper articles on the subject?

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/busi...icle3868988.ece

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/147...te-charity.html

I'm sorry, but I couldn't find anything in the Mail or the Express........ :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl

I think there's lobbying and nonsense talked by both sides of this debate, depends entirely upon where you choose to take your information from. If the pro side post something from Hansen, then the anti side get uppity, post stuff to discredit him. If the anti side post something by Spencer, the pro side get uppity, post stuff to discredit him. It's a pointless game of endless tit for tat, mildly entertaining at times but not really informative nor progressive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Thame, Oxfordshire
  • Location: Thame, Oxfordshire
So, from that dismissive comment, I assume you do not agree that there is any form of anti-AGW lobbying on the part of the oil companies?

Would it help if I posted some less socialist ( :o ) newspaper articles on the subject?

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/busi...icle3868988.ece

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/147...te-charity.html

I'm sorry, but I couldn't find anything in the Mail or the Express........ :o

Well if you could find something in the Sun you would have a convert :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Harrogate, N Yorks
  • Location: Harrogate, N Yorks
This has been alluded to in other threads, but I thought it might deserve a thread of it's own.

There is mounting evidence that global policy is being influenced, but not necessarily by those who have been so far accused on these boards...

http://www.spinwatch.org/content/view/4104/8/

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/scien...anizations.html

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/gl...y/exxon-secrets

http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=289

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006...petrol.business

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/eu...ing-427404.html

Having had so much discussion of the bias of IPCC scientists, the MetO, etc, etc, I thought it was about time we levelled the playing field a little.

With hugely wealthy trans-national oil companies, etc having a vested interest in disproving AGW, is it not possible that the most influential bias/propaganda/lobbying being done benefits the skeptics, rather than the proponents, of AGW?

And, if so much money has been poured into this, how come they still can't find any solid evidence to disprove the findings of the IPCC?

Propaganda or defence? If I were accused of producing something that was destroying the planet I'd pretty much want to defend myself. I'm no purveyor of rose tinted specs with regard to the energy industry, what Big Coal is doing to the Appalachian mountains is absolutley appalling (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/am...top-831037.html) but I would be VERY careful to automatically dismiss a defence as propaganda on the basis that the accused might benefit. This is a dangerous precendent that does not need to feed into courtroom decisions or we really are screwed.

Yes, I'm quite happy to accept that you can find as much bull and spin on the sceptic side as the climate change side, and somehow we have to sift through all the trash to come up with the nuggets of truth - and good luck on that one!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
And, if so much money has been poured into this, how come they still can't find any solid evidence to disprove the findings of the IPCC?

Perhaps - and I have said this before - it's not possible to actively disprove the IPCC findings. It is the interpretation of the science that differs. If both the Pros and the Antis have the same set of evidence but have drawn opposing conclusions then what it all comes down to is a matter of opinion. How do you disprove an opinion without compelling evidence?

Think of it this way: one group believes that quarks are the smallest division of an atom, while another group believes that atoms are infinitely divisible. (This is a fictitious example, BTW!) An experiment is performed to split a quark and it fails. The first group hails this as proof that a quark is indivisible. The second group maintains that the experiment was not sufficiently energetic to split the quark. How is either group going to convince the other? Same experiment, same result, different conclusions.

:)

CB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...