Political Involvement With Agw / Gw / Climate Change

[PersianPaladin]

Heartland has received at least $676,500 from Exxon-Mobil since 1998, the year Exxon launched a campaign to oppose the Kyoto Treaty, according to official documents of the two groups that have been compiled and reproduced by the website ExxonSecrets.org. Also, the institute's self-described Government Relations Adviser Walter F. Buchholtz has been a lobbyist for Exxon-Mobil, the Washington Post reported in 2004.

http://rawstory.com/...ies-exxonmobil/

Extensive ties to Exxon-Mobil. Hmm....

Anybody who has read Thomas Ferguson's book "Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competition and the Logic of Money-Driven Political Systems" will understand the significance of this. The investment of certain corporate interests, in a money-driven system of information dissemination and public relations has clear power to promote certain voices, slogans and approaches. The biggest corporate interests (via our media) have the biggest control over the dissemination of information. In the arena of climate science; it is quite concerning when special interests prop-up certain people who should not be allowed to grandstand with such a great lobbying power in the "skeptic" camp.

Edited December 4, 2009 by PersianPaladin

[Admiral_Bobski]

http://rawstory.com/...ies-exxonmobil/

Extensive ties to Exxon-Mobil. Hmm....

Anybody who has read Thomas Ferguson's book "Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competition and the Logic of Money-Driven Political Systems" will understand the significance of this. The investment of certain corporate interests, in a money-driven system of information dissemination and public relations has clear power to promote certain voices, slogans and approaches. The biggest corporate interests (via our media) have the biggest control over the dissemination of information. In the arena of climate science; it is quite concerning when special interests prop-up certain people who should not be allowed to grandstand with such a great lobbying power in the "skeptic" camp.

Well, having read that I am now terrified of the concept of World Peace - have you any idea how many peace initiatives are funded by Exxon Mobil?

Darn them all to heck!

CB

[PersianPaladin]

Well, having read that I am now terrified of the concept of World Peace - have you any idea how many peace initiatives are funded by Exxon Mobil?

Darn them all to heck!

CB

Have you not read Thomas Fergusons' book? Well don't be so quick to judge on these issues.

As for "peace initiatives" they're clearly not working. Look who got the Nobel Peace Prize!! Look at Af-Pak, Plan Columbia, Iraq, Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, East African states, etc.

Edited December 4, 2009 by PersianPaladin

[Solar Cycles]

Have you not read Thomas Fergusons' book? Well don't be so quick to judge on these issues.

As for "peace initiatives" they're clearly not working. Look who got the Nobel Peace Prize!! Look at Af-Pak, Plan Columbia, Iraq, Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, East African states, etc.

I'm with you on that one, not that long ago they give one to the messiah Al Gore!

[PersianPaladin]

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear....

[LomondSnowstorm]

Annoyingly, and though it is expressed very badly, I have to agree with one or two parts of that speech. It does worry me, though, that the far-right's scepticism of of global warming is marginalising the non-political sceptics - and yes, sceptic is the appropriate word rather than 'denier' or rejecter, as it is not just those who totally reject the idea of AGW that are sceptics. I think AGW and the IPCC has become overly political, however, that does not mean that all people who share that view are anti-environmentalist - in fact, I could see reason for quite the opposite - you could argue that the environmental lobby may be endangering itself by wedding itself too closely to AGW, instead of continually focussing on the many valid, less disputed issues e.g. deforestation, desertification and resource depletion, all of which would need a solution which is not too disimilar to a lot of what is proposed at Copenhagen.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Some pretty fair comments there IMHO.

[PersianPaladin]

Annoyingly, and though it is expressed very badly, I have to agree with one or two parts of that speech. It does worry me, though, that the far-right's scepticism of of global warming is marginalising the non-political sceptics - and yes, sceptic is the appropriate word rather than 'denier' or rejecter, as it is not just those who totally reject the idea of AGW that are sceptics. I think AGW and the IPCC has become overly political, however, that does not mean that all people who share that view are anti-environmentalist - in fact, I could see reason for quite the opposite - you could argue that the environmental lobby may be endangering itself by wedding itself too closely to AGW, instead of continually focussing on the many valid, less disputed issues e.g. deforestation, desertification and resource depletion, all of which would need a solution which is not too disimilar to a lot of what is proposed at Copenhagen.

I conceed you make some valid points.

Its just not good for PR when we see speeches like that.

[Solar Cycles]

At last a politician with some balls, unfortunately it's the odious Nick Griffin!

However he makes some valid points, lets hope the more mainstream politicians come on board, instead of being spoon fed misinformation from their puppet masters!

[Devonian]

Annoyingly, and though it is expressed very badly, I have to agree with one or two parts of that speech. It does worry me, though, that the far-right's scepticism of of global warming is marginalising the non-political sceptics - and yes, sceptic is the appropriate word rather than 'denier' or rejecter, as it is not just those who totally reject the idea of AGW that are sceptics. I think AGW and the IPCC has become overly political, however, that does not mean that all people who share that view are anti-environmentalist - in fact, I could see reason for quite the opposite - you could argue that the environmental lobby may be endangering itself by wedding itself too closely to AGW, instead of continually focussing on the many valid, less disputed issues e.g. deforestation, desertification and resource depletion, all of which would need a solution which is not too disimilar to a lot of what is proposed at Copenhagen.

Good post.

If I were a 'sceptic' (side point, what is the best word for people who dispute the science to varying degree?) I'd be distancing myself from the odious Griffin and very, very fast. Given the mud (and worse, much worse) that's been slung at all Gore, Griffin is an obvious target for return fire. Otoh, if sceptics have him on their side perhaps nothing need be said...

I may have missed it, but what science did Griffin cite? We get lots of hue and cry, lots of invective, from the likes of Griffin, but counter argument, counter science? Not a jot...

Edited December 6, 2009 by Devonian

[Methuselah]

At last a politician with some balls, unfortunately it's the odious Nick Griffin!

However he makes some valid points, lets hope the more mainstream politicians come on board, instead of being spoon fed misinformation from their puppet masters!

'Tis a pity he lets them do all his talking, though...

But, it looks rather like he's swallowed all the misinformation he's been fed by his backers - his 'valid' points being all mangled-up with empty vitriol...A Straw Man in the true sense of the word?? Who are the 'thousands of climate scientists,' exactly?

Then again, I guess it's better than his Holocaust Denial? A prime candidate for the 'black helicopters' methinks... :ph34r:

[noggin]

I may have missed it, but what science did Griffin cite? We get lots of hue and cry, lots of invective, from the likes of Griffin, but counter argument, counter science? Not a jot...

It isn't just a scientific issue though. There are other aspects to this whole issue, including political and moral and goodness-knows-who using it to gain personal advantage.

I don't agree with Nick Griffin that there are attempts to form a New World Order out of it,though, although I am aware that some people think that this is the case.

I agree with many of the points made by Nick Griffin in the first part of his speech.

On the BBC News the other day was Martin (?) Shukman (sp?). He said that the reason that sceptics were sceptical was because they all wanted a reason to carry on driving their SUVs. I happen to know that he is wrong, because I am a sceptic..........I am sceptical that GW is man-made but am very careful to keep my use of fossil fuels to a extremely low (mind-bogglingly low, actually) level and to reduce waste, re-use and recycle wherever I can.

Similarly, as a sceptic, Gordon Brown's ( ) words....."behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics" must also apply to me. I like to think that I am ahead of my time, in that I have doubted that global warming is/was man-made for quite a few years and it is only more recently that sceptical scientists have been brave enough to speak out. Goodness knows I have had some flak here for my views. Nor am I anti-science.....that was just a ridiculous accusation for him to make....surely we are all thankful for the scientific work which has lead to such things as the elimination of many deadly diseases amongst many other things. Also, I am aware that the Earth is not flat, unless all of the photographic evidence that I have seen in my 53 years has been faked.

As for that Millipede thing ( )....well, according to him, I behave in a dangerous and deceitful manner. Dangerous, me? That's a laugh....I wouldn't say "boo" to a goose. As for deceitful....well, I have to say that honesty, integrity and a desire for fairness and justice are the very essence of me, although as this is an internet forum, my word would have to be taken on this.

I think that Shukman, Brown and Millipede's comments say more about Shukman, Brown and Millipede than they do about the people at whom they are making these ridiculous and desperate accusations.

Now, as always, I hope I have not offended anyone...... I have taken time over this post and have chosen my words as carefully as possible so as not to give offence!

Except to Gordon Brown ( :ph34r: ) who is a complete and utter &*^%$* who has ruined my once beautiful Country and who ought to go and &%*$ himself with a ^(%%&$ big stick.

Thank you.

[Methuselah]

I agree that Brown's denigration of all sceptics (I am one myself ) was not a clever move at all...IMO, lumping everyone together like that, as if we all believe in fairies, is a Straw Man, Mr Brown!

[Thundery wintry showers]

Aye, and one of the worst things here is that the crusades by the CRU hackers and the far-right propaganda people give people like Gordon Brown an "excuse" to tar all climate sceptics with the same brush...

[Devonian]

It isn't just a scientific issue though. There are other aspects to this whole issue, including political and moral and goodness-knows-who using it to gain personal advantage.

I don't agree with Nick Griffin that there are attempts to form a New World Order out of it,though, although I am aware that some people think that this is the case.

I agree with many of the points made by Nick Griffin in the first part of his speech.

On the BBC News the other day was Martin (?) Shukman (sp?). He said that the reason that sceptics were sceptical was because they all wanted a reason to carry on driving their SUVs. I happen to know that he is wrong, because I am a sceptic..........I am sceptical that GW is man-made but am very careful to keep my use of fossil fuels to a extremely low (mind-bogglingly low, actually) level and to reduce waste, re-use and recycle wherever I can.

Similarly, as a sceptic, Gordon Brown's ( ) words....."behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics" must also apply to me. I like to think that I am ahead of my time, in that I have doubted that global warming is/was man-made for quite a few years and it is only more recently that sceptical scientists have been brave enough to speak out. Goodness knows I have had some flak here for my views. Nor am I anti-science.....that was just a ridiculous accusation for him to make....surely we are all thankful for the scientific work which has lead to such things as the elimination of many deadly diseases amongst many other things. Also, I am aware that the Earth is not flat, unless all of the photographic evidence that I have seen in my 53 years has been faked.

As for that Millipede thing ( )....well, according to him, I behave in a dangerous and deceitful manner. Dangerous, me? That's a laugh....I wouldn't say "boo" to a goose. As for deceitful....well, I have to say that honesty, integrity and a desire for fairness and justice are the very essence of me, although as this is an internet forum, my word would have to be taken on this.

I think that Shukman, Brown and Millipede's comments say more about Shukman, Brown and Millipede than they do about the people at whom they are making these ridiculous and desperate accusations.

Now, as always, I hope I have not offended anyone...... I have taken time over this post and have chosen my words as carefully as possible so as not to give offence!

Except to Gordon Brown ( :ph34r: ) who is a complete and utter &*^%$* who has ruined my once beautiful Country and who ought to go and &%*$ himself with a ^(%%&$ big stick.

Thank you.

I think if I'd said that people would suggest to me I shouldn't take is so personally

[Solar Cycles]

'Tis a pity he lets them do all his talking, though...

But, it looks rather like he's swallowed all the misinformation he's been fed by his backers - his 'valid' points being all mangled-up with empty vitriol...A Straw Man in the true sense of the word?? Who are the 'thousands of climate scientists,' exactly?

Then again, I guess it's better than his Holocaust Denial? A prime candidate for the 'black helicopters' methinks... :ph34r:

That's true, even I can't fathom out who these thousands of scientists are!

[rob48]

Is it a fact mow that sceptics are all on the far right?

I was unaware of this development.

[Solar Cycles]

Is it a fact mow that sceptics are all on the far right?

I was unaware of this development.

According to the hardcore left we are!

[rob48]

I think you're probably right and it shows how indoctrinated they are.

[Devonian]

Is it a fact mow that sceptics are all on the far right?

I was unaware of this development.

Who's said they all are?

[noggin]

I think if I'd said that people would suggest to me I shouldn't take is so personally

True.

[Devonian]

I think you're probably right and it shows how indoctrinated they are.

No, no one has suggest those who dispute the science are all extreme right wingers like N. Griffin.

Otoh, it's a standard mantra that 'warmers' are all leftie/commie/grenie na*is or similar nonsnese so you should be careful about what stones you cast

Edited December 6, 2009 by Devonian

[noggin]

and it shows how indoctrinated they are.

Do you mean the hard-core left?

[Methuselah]

Far Right or Far Left - does it really matter? There are 'extremists' on all sides of every divide...

But, one thing I did notice??? Although Griffin's rhetoric went from bad-to-worse in lumping all (non-sceptical) climate scientists with such evil dictators as Stalin and Mao, he excluded his Uncle Adolf from criticism; but, him being a well-documented Holocaust Denier, is that really so surprising! :lol:

The 'sceptic' in me want's no alliegance from this horrid little man...I don't want him associating himself with genuine scepticism, for nothing other than his own personal political gain! :lol:

Do you mean the hard-core left?

Left and Right both, I hope!

[rob48]

"Otoh, it's a standard mantra that 'warmers' are all leftie/commie/grenie na*is or similar nonsnese so you should be careful about what stones you cast "

Perhaps that's due to the reliance on state funding and full-blown support of the BBC?