Climate Change Counter-Movement Study (global warming, fence, companies, dollars)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, it has long been evident that Climate Change denials are largely funded by the big energy companies and political conservatives, especially by ultra-rich and ultra-conservative oil and coal company owners, who have the most to lose financially from any reductions in fossil fuel usage. But it's good to be reminded this is not just conjecture, it is a proven fact with solid evidence behind it.
But before any carpet-bombing replies break out, I'd like to remind everyone of the special conditions that apply to comments in the Green Living forum...
The author of the paper, Robert Brulle, received his B.S. in Marine Engineering from the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. In short, that means his undergraduate education-in the least-was received without "politics" in the class room. Also, as a marine engineering student, Brulle was more-than-likely well-versed in atmospheric-ocean science as both are one-in-the-same. As would be the case, he would also be familiar with not only atmospheric science, but also meteorology and a geological review of the Earth's climate history.
As someone who works in the marine environment myself, and who is also not only familiar with ocean science[s] but also atmospheric, I can say that science is science and that there is sound science on both sides of the fence here regarding global warming. Scientists are skeptics by either nature or training, and good science is full of debate. The debate among scientists, however, is not whether it is happening or not but instead what is [the possible] cause. And I'll leave it at that.
Not everyone can afford a subscription to scientific journals (some of which can run in the tens of thousands of dollars per year), and individual papers can by as high as $40 a pop, but, there is Google Scholar and plenty of articles and papers that are offered for free. I encourage anyone who has the time to bother to read a few papers on climate change from both the "alarmists" and "denialists" perspectives and develop your own opinion. I have my own opinion on this matter, and will keep that to myself. I will write that it is sad that there are "agendas" on both sides and that both sides use emotion and fear (okay, that is an emotion ) to sway public opinion.
So what you are saying is that when the Sierra Club took millions from the natural gas industry for their war on coal it was nothing but a sham?
I'm going to explain something to you, there is far more money to be made in climate change than the fossil fuel industry. There is multi national banks, renewable energy companies and even companies in the fossil fuel industy lining up behind this becsue there is lot of money to be made.
I'm going to explain something to you, there is far more money to be made in climate change than the fossil fuel industry. There is multi national banks, renewable energy companies and even companies in the fossil fuel industy lining up behind this becsue there is lot of money to be made.
Not one "cap and trade" takes affect. If you think "the rich" made large on the stock markets, once C&T is in place nothing will stop corporations, multinationals and the ultra-rich from buying up all the available carbon credits and reselling them at obscene profits. At least the price of oil can be regulated by governments. Carbon credits cannot by their very nature.
And that's only ONE way the rich are going to exploit the Climate Change industry!
Companies are always seeking to provide a lower priced product becsue the business's and consumers they serve are always looking for something cheaper. Perhaps you can explain how this gets flipped on it's head and now we need government legislation for that.
Companies are always seeking to provide a lower priced product becsue the business's and consumers they serve are always looking for something cheaper. Perhaps you can explain how this gets flipped on it's head and now we need government legislation for that.
The electric utility business has been based upon government regulation for almost 100 year. All of those coal fired plants were built based upon what the company and government regulators decided was the best to build. Free market economics had nothing to do with it.
The electric utility business has been based upon government regulation for almost 100 year. All of those coal fired plants were built based upon what the company and government regulators decided was the best to build. Free market economics had nothing to do with it.
ROFL... and what exactly was the alternative? Coal dominated becsue it was cheap and plenty of supply, coal and natural gas will continue to dominate sans government interference because it's cheap and plenty of supply.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) to sway public opinion.
