Greenpeace Says Climate Denialism a 20–Year Industry

Here's the actual quote from the story, as opposed to the way the Ms. Bast attempted to distort it in her comment above (interestingly, she's using the same tactics described in the story, which kind of makes you wonder about some of these people, doesn't it): "The report said that industry front groups and think tanks at the forefront of challenging the science of warming — such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Heartland Institute and the Cato Institute — receive a majority of their climate-related funds from a raft of utility, coal, oil and car interests."

ALG

Could anyone put it better. Splendid, thank you.

Funny you mention it. One of Greenpeace's founders has for years proclaimed that Global Warming was a hoax, and Greenpeace is solely in the business of political activism in the interest of financial and political reward. So the shipjumping has already begun and at the highest levels. Greenpeace is a total fraud. As if these newest ridiculous claims didn't make that perfectly clear...

$15 million is trivial? Tell that to people scraping to get by, the ones skipping meals so they can pay for the gas in their cars to get to work -- money that goes straight into campaigns like this.

No one who has been confidently, vigorously, dare one say arrogantly asserting fabulous sums of money for climate research has given even a hint of a taste of the slightest amount of evidence. In other words, what you read above about funding is all garbage.

Greenpeaces annual budget is $30 million that's about the size of jsut one of the denial funding sources--that of Koch industries. And unlike Koch, Greenpeace funds many other activities besides global warming PR--not the least of which is their well-known whale protection. Those who fund the deniers are multinational energy companies worth many billions. It doesn't take a rocket scientists to realize big energy money dwarfs the green organizations and that they'll keep funding denial and writing it off their taxes as long as it preserves profits.

I don't know about the others, but I definitely remember Lindzen in the pro-CO2 video, "The Greening of Planet Earth." This 1991 video included comments from nine Doctors--seven were involved with agriculture/botany, one worked for the German National Coal Association, and the last was Lindzen.

The video paints a happy picture of more productive crops thanks to all the extra CO2, ignoring the fact that excessive growth can and does kill plants.

"The Greening of Planet Earth" was paid for by Western Fuels Association Inc. While this does not mean Lindzen is "in the pay of big oil," his relationship with them is a long one.

By labelling skeptics like myself as denialists or part of some 'denial industry', Greenpeace loses all credibility. Stop going after the skeptics by labelling them and trying to politically marginalize them. This is a form of hate speech - implicitly linking all doubters - including many scientists and academics like myself - with Holocaust deniers and moral illiterates. Start looking at the very real issues and problems with so-called climate science and risk your agenda by actually engaging the doubters over the science itself. And stop condemning people for taking actions to defend their way of life or trying to better their way of life. Until Greenpeace starts showing concern and respect for all kinds of people, including the science doubters, and the poor and economically marginalized in all nations, this organization should have be granted no moral suasion by the general public. I once donated to this organization: I will discourage others from doing so and will never again donate to it unless it loses its deep-ecology, anti-human stance. This stance is revealed by its campaign to deny DDT for indoor use (DDT impregnated nets) to Africans to try to eliminate malaria, which kills more children in Africa than AIDS, and still has a wider death toll than AIDS throughout the world.

So we are stupid now? Please! I have not believed a thing of Al Gores statement for one second. I read and he try to be scary. I know **** enough to not buy the whole scam. And aren't the trend changing? You get into slander and petty childish explanations on how people think. Like you yourselfs are gods that can consume.

Greenpeace is a bunch of criminals and should all be jailed today.!!!!

The opposite but equal climate alarmism machine has been just as active and visible during this same time. And in this time the THEORY of global warming has seen little tangible advancement beyond ever-more fantastic statistical models. No causal, quantifiable mechanism has been established. So basically we are talking about a scientific debate. Some believe there is defined phenomena, some do not, and no indisputable proof either way exists.

Those being the hard facts it is nothing more than smear to purport that private funds supporting research on the topic is somehow constitutes an evil denial machine. Especially when ExxonMobil has supported research on both sides of the issue and supports cap and trade at the behest of many skeptics. Yet this devious and dishonest implication is presented without the counterpoint that in this same time scientists have received an excess of $70 BILLION in funding from government sources the whole of which was diverted to studies supporting the central theory rather than simply compiling verifiable facts. And it should also be noted that much of this funding went to institutions and individuals who have since been shown to have been corrupting the scientific and peer-review processes, circumventing legal and moral obligations, and bullying publications. By that same note, the source of this information, Greenpeace, has pushed such prolific alarmism that some of their unsubstantiated claims have ended up being proclaimed as fact in UN reports. And not because there ever was a shred of proof or verification, but simply because of propagandist lobbying efforts where facts and truth are an afterthought to promoting their self serving agenda.

So whatever this article is supposed to accomplish beyond use as toilet paper, it not only falls short, but purposely presents cherry picked facts to slander and fabricate truth. Couple that with the facts presented in this post and it would seem that it is the Alarmist agenda who is in the business of denying science and the facts. They clearly knowlingly and choosingly do so here...

Jay Richards’ “When-Not-To-Believe-The-Science-Of-Scientists” is the best rebuttal to this sort of collective insanity. Just quote one or more of a dozen of the reasons below depending on the offending Eco-hype in question and give Jay Richards' logic and common sense wings. His 12 point checklist should be taught in the classroom to inoculate our youth against the rising flood of propaganda manufactured by Big Government, Big Media and Big Academia working together against the best interests of the American people.

Let's see, what might fit the logical absurdities ladled out in this article? #2 looks pretty good to start with, but here, you choose:

(1) When different claims get bundled together.

(2) When ad hominem attacks against dissenters predominate.

(3) When scientists are pressured to toe the party line.

(4) When publishing and peer review in the discipline is cliquish.

(5) When dissenting opinions are excluded from the relevant peer-reviewed literature not because of weak evidence or bad arguments but as part of a strategy to marginalize dissent.

(6) When the actual peer-reviewed literature is misrepresented.

(7) When consensus is declared hurriedly or before it even exists.

(8) When the subject matter seems, by its nature, to resist consensus.

(9) When “scientists say” or “science says” is a common locution

(10) When it is being used to justify dramatic political or economic policies.

(11) When the “consensus” is maintained by an army of water-carrying journalists who defend it with uncritical and partisan zeal, and seem intent on helping certain scientists with their messaging rather than reporting on the field as objectively as possible. (The ECONOMIST included)

(12) When we keep being told that there’s a scientific consensus.

http://thegovmonitor.com/world_news/united_states/when-not-to-believe-th...

Gosh, all these anonymous comments. I don't know all your real names. Perhaps if we hang out and chat like friends and neighbors it might help you learn something. Because by hiding behind pseudonyms, and responding with such boilerplate denialism it kind of leads me to think that many of you are professional PR flacks... perhaps working for the American Petroleum Institute. You seem to mount a quite well organized response here. You must be very well funded. I expect any business that involves carbon combustion will be seeking your services. Tell me, do your stockholders require such protection from criticism of a 400Billion dollar/year industry? I know you cannot speak out using your real names, but you might send some documents to Wikileaks.

Until I know that you are a real person, I am afraid my distrust grows. Given the subject matter and all.

National Press Club
Washington DC
January 25, 2005

As most of you have heard many times, the consensus of climate scientists believes in global warming. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

And furthermore, the consensus of scientists has frequently been wrong. As they were wrong when they believed, earlier in my lifetime, that the continents did not move. So we must remember the immortal words of Mark Twain, who said, "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect."

Michael Crichton

Okay. So you basically claim that the case for AGW would be stronger if fewer scientists were for it? Riiiight ...