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.
Accusing scientists of trying to make money off of climate change is a right wing smear tactic, pure and simple.
The climate denier side started as an astroturf effort funded by the fossil fuel industry. The oil and gas companies know that climate change is real. They want to gin up as much public distrust in science as possible to buy time so they can keep selling oil and gas.
Greedy energy corporations are trying to maximize profits today at the expense of our kids' and grandkids' future. It's disgusting.
What about the accusations of scientists in the fields of geophysics profiting? Or scientists in the field of GMOs? There is absolutely no difference.
What about the accusations of scientists in the fields of geophysics profiting? Or scientists in the field of GMOs? There is absolutely no difference.
This argument doesn't work because climate change has been confirmed by so many studies and scientists from around the world, the vast majority of which have no financial interests in the findings.
Beyond that, another reason climate change has been accepted by a majority of Americans is they can personally feel it. I've lived in Northern Calif for most of my life and the climate here today is not the same as it was 30 years ago. Around the U.S. if you ask farmers and ranchers -- people who know the weather and seasons intimately -- they will tell you the climate is changing rapidly (the honest non-politicized ones, anyway).
From the time humans first came up with the concept of money, there have been profiteers. Nothing new in that. You deal with it. You call out the frauds and prosecute them.
That does not take away from the reality of climate change.
The irony is is that had we taken action in 1980, 1990 or even in the 00s the amount of change and the pain that change would have caused would have been minimal.
But because we did nothing, the paid and the amount of pain will be exponential and that will keep growing the longer we wait.
There were profiteers during WWII, but that did make the US war effort illegitimate. IT comes with the territory.
We did though. Granted, with the help of offshoring much of our manufacturing. Which basically just moves the pollution from one area to another. I don't really see any way to stop it, not with the current lifestyles we've all become accustomed to. Are we willing to pull the cord, shut down everything and go back to living like we did in the pre industrial era ?
Ran across this website and article. If it has any credibility, it sure seems like many are taking a legitimate concern and trying to profit from it. Is it that or just a conspiracy made up by the right wing ?
Accusing scientists of trying to make money off of climate change is a right wing smear tactic, pure and simple.
The climate denier side started as an astroturf effort funded by the fossil fuel industry. The oil and gas companies know that climate change is real. They want to gin up as much public distrust in science as possible to buy time so they can keep selling oil and gas.
Greedy energy corporations are trying to maximize profits today at the expense of our kids' and grandkids' future. It's disgusting.
It's disgusting, but it is typical human behavior. We've not only lost the battle, we've lost the war - long ago actually. There is no way to reverse climate change at this point. CO2 levels are high enough now, that heating will continue even if a fraction of the populace begins reducing their carbon dioxide production.
Only thing that remains to be seen is how civilization will cope with the changes that are coming. On the bright side, these changes will happen slowly enough that many populations will be able to shift away from heavily impacted areas. But there will be losers, no doubt about it.
Last edited by GearHeadDave; 09-24-2019 at 10:16 AM..
But if you want to support this conspiracy theory, you'll have to find a better source than the poorly -written blog you posted.
There was no bias in my OP, just a question. I don't care either way. The wife and I try to live as clean as possible, but we aren't turning over the keys to our ICE powered vehicles just yet. Wish we could afford a Tesla..
Money is good, not a single one of us will deny that. Using children and fear mongering doesn't seem right though. I know change is tough for many, including myself but what we are seeing now just seems the wrong way to go about it. Maybe i'm wrong, being a life long skeptic. I never take anything at face value.
I understand the skepticism. My belief is that the denial of climate change is mostly an economic concern. I suspect if it cost us nothing or very little to fix it, Trump would not be calling it a hoax and neither would a lot of other people. That's understandable but it would be more honest if they said they believe the problem but don't like the solution. That means we can get past whether climate change is real and concentrate on how to solve it with least pain.
Ran across this website and article. If it has any credibility, it sure seems like many are taking a legitimate concern and trying to profit from it. Is it that or just a conspiracy made up by the right wing ?
Bloggers almost always have their own special interests ax to grind. Deniers consistently claim that scientists are being paid beaucoup bucks to alter their findings to make the case for AGW seem more valid. From what I can understand, conservatives seem to believe that there is a world-wide conspiracy of evil which hopes to take over every nation on the planet and enslave the people of the world with the formation of some global collectivest hell.
As always, follow the money. What one special interest group has the required money to spend to influence public opinion in every nation on the planet? Don't all answer at once. In 2011 for example,, it is estimated that all oil and gas interests invested $149,169,677 into lobbying efforts. In the 2012 elections, coal and petroleum interests donated $710,277 Barack Obama's campaign while Mitt Romney’s campaign pocketed $4,763,934 during the same period.
Exxon Mobile and the Koch brothers have a lot to answer for.
Oil companies do not scare people with end of the world scenarios. They provide a product, and make a profit. This is normal.
No, instead oil companies intentionally funded think-tanks to confuse the public on the issue even when their own research showed what harm their product was doing. https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-40-years-ago/
Reminds me of the tobacco companies. You don’t know it, but your view on climate change is influenced by these denier think-tanks.
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.
