Are you okay with oil companies funding groups to promote climate skepticism?

In a free country, it has to be ok. It is a fundamental right protected by the US constitution.

Actually, Joanne Nova points out that the alarmist side of the argument is funded at a rate which is about 1000x that provided to the skeptics by Exxon and the like.

Arguing against research based on where the funds come from is a form of an ad hominem argument. It is, therefore, invalid. Even if the funds come from the devil himself, that does not mean the research is false. It has to be evaluated on the strength of the arguments.

It is amusing, though, to consider that the many billions of dollars funded to the alarmist researchers via the US government, or any of the big NGOs (WWF, etc) is considered not to influence their conclusions, whilst the few millions sent to skeptics by Exxon does influence theirs. Somehow those oil-sourced dollars are more powerful at corrupting scientists than are government/NGO dollars.

Good science requires a healthy debate that includes critics. The climate science community is not providing that amongst themselves; rather, they are doing their level best to shut off, shut out and shut down any dissent. In decision-making theory, this is a prescription for disaster.

Funding (from whatever source) for skeptical science is essential, or what is left is no longer science.

Have you given any thought to the proposition that Exxon spent that $16 million so that they could make even more money off of you, not to help you? Now I know you would never claim that the environmental groups are trying to help you by stopping a project that does untold damage to ecosystems so a few corporations can make money, but you would have to be delusional to think that Greenpeace gave the Inuit money so that Greenpeace could make a fortune by *not* selling tar sands oil. The point is that why do you think greed is more noble than preservation? Do you really think Exxon has your best interests at heart? Really? You would let them run the world?

Also, Exxon spent nearly 1.5X what you say, $24 million, and the Koch brothers spent $50,000,000, on funding climate skeptics. Judging by you, I'ld say it was money well spent.

<<I don't have exact figures but by my best estimates, Exxon gave $16M in funds between 1998 and 2005 to some 42 climate “skeptics” groups.>>

Exxon stated in 2008 to its shareholders it would stop funding climate denial but the truth is that is has continued to fund them, albeit with much smaller amounts. (1)

<<Are you okay with oil companies funding groups to promote climate skepticism?>>

No, but you already knew that. And I'd rather describe their actions as 'deliberately spreading misinformation, bad science and complete fabrications''.

<<Well I ask those people what they think about environmental groups giving $16M to Canadian native nations to oppose the Enbridge Northern Gateway oil pipeline?>>

There is a fundamental difference between those two: the environmental groups funding natives is about conserving/protecting the environment while the oil company funding of climate denial is all about protecting corporate benefits. In theory, there is nothing wrong with protecting corporate benefits but not at the expense of my health and the future of our children by deliberately spreading falsehoods.

<<Also note that the entire funding has been at least $300M from foreign environmental organizations opposing most everything to do with the Alberta oil sands, pipelines included.>>

The entire funding of climate change denial up to now is much larger than that.

PS Coast Funds denies the allegations on their website. (2)

Edit @ OMike:

<<Are they denying that they provided the funding...>>

I gave you a link. Read for yourself.

<<has it been shown that Exxon provided funding the skeptics on the condition that they oppose the "consensus"?>>

There has never ever been any need for a condition imposed by Exxon as it simply choose to fund those organizations and 'experts' which had already shown a strong opposition to the known consensus. (But it is ironic that you, after all the fake climategate II 'questions' posted here, you are now suddenly concerned about actual proof).

<<what is your evidence for making that statement?>>

What statement? And what is your evidence that the funding against the Alberta oil sands is $300m (Canadian or US dollars?).

<<Or do you apply some sort of assessment on the motives or the goals or the worthiness of such funding and then decide whether it okay or not? >>

Is it OK in your opinion to fund Hezbollah? If you believe it is not then you just answered your very own question.

<<...do you respect my thoughts on this sort of funding?>>

I respect anyone's thought yet that does not mean I agree with it.

Honestly there is a difference between environment groups donating money to stop the development of a potential environmental disaster than the scientists who work for the denial organizations who have been fed money by Big Oil who are paid to distort facts solely for the purpose of debunking what most legitimate scientists know to be true (that is Global Warming/Climate Change)

The amount of cost alone compared to the return in oil makes it a marginally profitable venture with risks greater than any possible return. We have already seen what deep drilling for oil has accomplished in the Gulf and now we intend to threaten BC and the US Northwest with an oil pipeline.

If you have any rel interest in Climate Change, read "Hot, Flat and Crowded" by Friedman It speaks to the issues of Petro-Dictatorships (scary), and what Global Warming really means for all of us.

Deliberately spreading what has objectively and repeatedly proven to be lies to create fear and doubt in the name of (what other possible reason than) greed would objectively be a moral wrong, wouldn't you agree?

Sticking up for the little guys, the disadvantaged, who, it has been shown objectively and repeatedly, have been historically and repeatedly wronged in the name of (what other possible reason than) greed, would objectively be a moral right, wouldn't you agree?

Or are you one of those moral relativists?

It's right there in the code, #8, #9 and #10. Thou shalt not steal, lie or covet. Funny there's nothing in there about being responsible for righting those wrongs.

Nah, you live in a fantasy world where Exxon Mobile is the little guy try to right a historic misperception about climate change and native peoples around the world have never had anyone try to take advantage of them.

I have a copy of Out Foxed, by Glenn Greenwald. I learned the FCC media is not required to broadcast facts, truth nor accurate information in so called news programming. Why? In the best interests of commerce, consumption and advertising!

Now I am aware, and ignore bias, deplore falsehood in all forms. Lies are the bane of humanity.

So that is how I deal with it. And I try to explain in conversation the truth behind the scams of the G W deniers, rGBH, fluoride as a benefit, drill baby drill.

So adherents of the denier camp: though you may be 'saved' and have 'everlasting life', you best spend the effort to change your Frontier Ethic, as nothing your corporate masters can say will prevent the poisoning of our home without your complicity.

effective try, yet ExxonMobil did no longer write those emails. climate "Scientists" did. As shameful because of the fact the emails have been, the reaction (or non-reaction) of the medical community is even worse. The reaction that those have been only emails between scientists, speaking in medical words that the uneducated inhabitants (i.e. peasants) won't be able to comprehend is organic BS. i'm no scientist, yet I comprehend what it skill to "delete all emails" a pair of particular subject rely. and you do no longer want a Phd to be sure that conspiring to maintain opposite evaluations out of the peer reviewed journals isn't precisely in conserving with the pristine ethical standards of purpose technology. And now the argument is popping to the "ninety%" of technology that become no longer immediately implicated interior the emails uncovered. yet you realize what you get once you positioned a teaspoon of sewage right into a barrel of wine? You get a barrel of sewage. The validity of anthropogenic international warming has been heavily compromised, and till we are in a position to handle the valid technology from the rigged information and manipulated fashions, and till we are in a position to repair the device to a factor the place dissent is given the comparable platform because of the fact the actual believers, it relatively is senseless to inflict cataclysmic injury to the international economies below the guise of "settled technology."

"Skepticism" is a euphemism for a blatant disinformation campaign.

I don't like to see corporations spending money in an effort to convince people that all is well and oil and other fossil fuels are our beautiful, beneficent gods to which we should blindly and blissfully sacrifice our wealth, environment and health. Fossil fuels are dirty and damaging to the environment before you get to the part where burning them in mass quantities releases enough CO2 into the atmosphere to affect the climate.

_

They do have freedom of speech, which is more than denialists would allow for people who accept global warming.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/05/virginia-vs-mich...

My issue is why are people so willing to accept what oil industry fueled think tanks and media say? Yes, most research is government funded. That is because most research does not produce a profit in the short term. The idea that there is some sort of government conspiracy to frighten people to accept taxes is ludicrous. It took over a century longer since Svante Arrhenius' report than what might be expected for anyone to seriously consider new taxes.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhen...

Most governments have been lukewarm or hostile towards AGW. The U.S. has cut funding for the IPCC.

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2011/02/19/hous...

After 20 years of rising emissions, Canada has withdrawn from the Kyoto Accord.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16151310

Germany is abandoning nuclear power.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/30/us-germa...

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,2396828,00.ht...

Some conspiracy!

Big Gryph

<there is a difference between environment groups donating money to stop the development of a potential environmental disaster than the scientists who work for the denial organizations who have been fed money by Big Oil>

I am not so sure that organizations like Greenpeace have pure motives. They seem to oppose, not what is most harmful, but what steps on the foot of big coal and OPEC. Their opposition to nuclear power has led to the construction of a large number of coal plants, which have been a big obstacle to the sort of emission reductions proposed by the Kyoto Accord. They seem to have no problem with OPEC nations flaring enough gas to supply the combined needs of Germany and France, yet, rather than trying to ensure that the Alberta oil sands are developed responsibly, they are trying to shut the oil sands down, in favor of imports from OPEC nations. I suspect that such organizations are funded by the coal lobby and OPEC.

Another very interesting question. Given equal dollar amounts for expenditures by opposing viewpoints, is the promotion of views philosophically opposed to one another something that one side or the other can legitimately object to in the other camp while supporting the promotion of their beliefs?

Ooh. That's good. I mean, presented as a David and Goliath battle, the expenditures of the hugely profitable energy interests to undercut environmental issues vs. their less well-heeled opposition takes on the visage of good vs. evil, with big energy looking evil and the clean air guys looking like noble saints. Take out the money and how does that affect the perception of the struggle? Then you just have-on one side, a group that is trying to deliver reasonably-priced energy to a population that wants it, and on the other a group that is trying to promote better environmental conditions.

I think it becomes a matter then, of fact vs. fiction. Like back in the cold war days, when we (the democratic nations) denounced what they (the communist nations) had to say about their own causes and beliefs as "propaganda" and they denounced what we had to say as 'imperialist lies.' Or whatever. On the side of the warmers there is a complex array of data and research that is almost impossible to disseminate to a large and scientifically inept population, and on the side of the skeptics is planting seeds of doubt in a large and scientifically inept population based on a large and complex array of data that is almost impossible to interpret.

You can't really object to individuals and organizations promoting their beliefs and their own agendas just because you disagree with them. Good point-what is good for the goose is good for the gander. You can root for the underdog, and if you are so disposed, the environmentalists are definitely the underdog is the fight against what the big energy companies are saying. You can go to the apparent nobility of the cause-big energy has a vested interest in protecting their profits and way of doing business while environmentalists have-at least superficially-far less to gain and no profit margin, so their cause is more noble on the face of it.

But if you level the playing field, is one really so morally superior to the other? I hadn't thought about it in that way...that is a VERY insightful and provacative question you put forth there...I have been influenced by the David vs. Goliath aspect of the fight, and the apparent nobility on one side vs. the ignoble self-interest of the other.

I think it boils down to truth for me, the manipulation of facts, and the presentation of the opposition. Mainly, I don't buy into the communist hoax to steal our liberties thing-the demonization. I also don't buy into the dismissal of scientific processes that are well-documented and studied. Neither do I buy into the tearful 'save the polar bears' pleas of some modern-day Doogie Houser, and when I see indications of that sort of thing I tend to dismiss that whole category of promoting agendas. Like a political PAC that runs attack ads, I'm like oh...bull. Neither Newt or Obama are out to destroy the world as we know it...you know what I mean, I think.

If someone or some organization is promoting obvious lies and distortions like that, I'm not OK with those lies and distortions being funded. The only thing is you can't draw a line in the sand and say if you cross this line you're done-because nobody can agree on where that line should be drawn in this dog fight...and you can't even really say for sure who is funded and who is just some crazy out there looking for attention or trying to make a buck out of it.

Geez, that's a great question. Best one I've seen in this category for a while. For the record, I'm a supporter of Canadian interests, but not a fan of oil sand production. The way I look at it though, if it is going to be done one way or the other, the U.S. would be stupid to block it's nearest and best neighbor and force the oil produced that way into foreign hands. I mean, I want the environment to be protected, but let's be practical here...it's not like we can all run down to Wal-Mart and buy portable fusion machines from Quisinart to run our cars and lawnmowers or anything.