Mostly. [url=http://www.isciencetimes.com/articles/6577/20131225/climate-change-climate-change-deniers-dark-money-global-warming.htm]Lots[/url] [url=http://cleantechnica.com/2013/12/24/conservatives-donate-1b-to-climate-denying-groups-per-year/]of[/url] [url=http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/12/billion-dollar-climate-denial-network-exposed/]sources[/url] on this, but here's the one from ars.
[quote]An extensive study into the financial networks that support groups denying the science behind climate change and opposing political action has found a vast, secretive web of think tanks and industry associations, bankrolled by conservative billionaires.
"I call it the climate-change counter movement," study author Robert Brulle, who published his results in the journal Climatic Change, told the Guardian. "It is not just a couple of rogue individuals doing this. This is a large-scale political effort."
His work, which is focused on the United States, shows how a network of 91 think tanks and industry groups are primarily responsible for conservative opposition to climate policy. Almost 80 percent of these groups are registered as charitable organizations for tax purposes and collectively received more than seven billion dollars between 2003 and 2010.
Among those named as key nodes of the network were the American Enterprise Institute, which claims to have no institutional position on climate change, and the Heritage Foundation, which campaigns on a number of issues.
However, Brulle admitted that tracing the funding back to its original sources was difficult, as around three-quarters of the money has been routed through trusts that assure anonymity to their donors.
While it was not always possible to separate funds designated strictly for climate-change work from overall budgets, Brulle said: "This is how wealthy individuals or corporations translate their economic power into political and cultural power."
He added: "They have their profits and they hire people to write books that say climate change is not real. They hire people to go on TV and say climate change is not real. It ends up that people without economic power don't have the same size voice as the people who have economic power, and so it ends up distorting democracy."[/quote]So there you have it.
[url=http://disinfo.com/2013/10/american-conservatives-dont-trust-science/]inb4moredenial[/url]
[url=http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-09/why-were-shutting-our-comments]inb4irony[/url]
-
The Earth has gone through literally millions of cooling and heating periods over the past 4.5 billions years. I want to live in a healthy environment with clean water and clean air, but it's typical human hubris to think that we know more than we do about complex Earth systems. Most of the science showing warming is based on info on the past 100 to 200 years. That is less than a drop in the ocean of the time that the Earth has existed. The Earth was warmer 1500 years ago than it is now. My point is, don't believe everything you read just because it fits within your politics. We just don't know. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to reduce pollution and CO2 emissions. In a hundred years, people will look back and laugh at what we thought we knew.
-
So what does this mean for me or anyone else beside having to put up with more Liberal Vs. Conservative debates?
-
Am I surprised that people who don't believe in climate change support research against it? Nope.
-
Why exactly are the conservatives generally anti science? Anti evolution and anti climate change seem to be the big ones.
-
No such thing as global warming
-
[quote]Heritage Foundation[/quote] I was expecting that name.
-
[quote]Dunn's Foundation for the Advancement of Right Thinking[/quote]On the pie chart I found these guys; I'll let the irony of the last 4 words sink in. I mean, the very definition of conservatism is not to advance, to stick with the old ways; unless this is some funny new usage of the word 'advance' I have yet to come across.
-
I wish conservatives would just see what's happening. There's this website that tells you how to argue about global warming and it gives extensive evidence and explanations for every imaginable question on the topic but I can't remember where it is. If anyone knows what I'm talking about it'd be appreciated.
-
Pfft- I come back and I see a few American conservatives (I know there's a difference between an American conservative and a few others, so I'm going to be specific about it) actually [i]defending[/i] the conservatives in the article. I can't even think of a logical reason to defend them in this article other than "They're part of my party and I just want to save face".
-
THANK YOU. I was just arguing about this with my father on Christmas day. He insisted that the effects of Climate Change had been exaggerated by corrupt scientists and their Liberal agenda, while I unsuccessfully tried to explain to him that most of the denial was being pushed my Conservative businessmen and special interests groups who didn't want environmental regulation cutting their profits. People will believe what they want to believe.
-
The right wing in the US has a vested interested in propagating misinformation about the role of humans in climate change. There is virtually unanimous scientific consensus, both in the US and internationally, that humans are responsible for climate change. Of course, oil companies make money by polluting the atmosphere with more carbon dioxide, and since Republicans represent these giant conglomerates to a larger extent than their actual constituents, it is no surprise that most of the misinformation is propagated by their party.
-
breaking news: conservatives are doing stupid things somebody stop the presses
-
......
-
Edited by Crimson: 12/29/2013 3:17:13 AMConservative billionaires who want to preserve their wealth =/= conservative ideology trying to deny climate change. Nice try, but when you either can't comprehend the link you posted and/or try to insult conservatives by twisting facts, I refuse to take you seriously. Not to mention that article was originally on Wired UK. The last link was barely relevant, and the second link was probably the most interesting. They had a sample size of 1001 who got electronic invitations and compensation.
-
tfw the Antarctic ice shelf is increasing, and scientists say that we're in a period of global cooling for the next half-century.
-
No shit
-
Implying it's propaganda. Cars are already 30K due to massive and expensive regulations. I guess they should cost even more now for muh environment, despite China doing a much larger dent than the US in terms of harmful substances in the environment, huh? Let's get something straight: modern Liberal and Conservative fiscal policies don't mix well. I'd rather have full-blown socialism than the mess we're in now. [spoiler]I bet it was dazarobbo who banned me for saying transexualism is a mental disorder, something that the medical community only renounced a few years ago due to political correctness and the forced trend of multi-gender acceptance. Technically, sex denial IS a mental disorder because you believe you're a woman in a man's body, or vice-versa, so really I'm not disrespecting anybody by calling out simple conclusive facts. tl;dr I was told to check my privilege for saying something that's not that far-fetched because I'm an evil racist sexist cis scum conservative, when I'm a Libertarian with opinions, opinions that don't necessarily mean I want to "enforce" with law like your typical social conservative. inb4bannedagain[/spoiler]
-
Edited by Bolt: 12/27/2013 12:36:04 AMAnd how much do you think democratic interests are bankrolling the other side? Politicization of scientific studies is never a good thing, principally because politics assumes that it knows the answers from the start, which is the antithesis of of the scientific method. Case-in-point, scientists have been complaining about NASA's minimal acknowledgement of variations in Solar radiation (and the major variations in Earth's magnetic field) for awhile now, but relatively little study has been put towards these potential factors, due largely to the fact that those factors don't play into the interests of either political party. If this is responsible for recent deviation of the correlation between temperature increase and CO2 levels as some fringe groups suggest, then we have successfully buried the scientific truth of the matter in favor of politics. No scientist worthy of the term is suggesting that CO2 doesn't trap heat, but that doesn't mean that's the sole factor at play here, and if we're not letting all the factors we can consider be considered, the Democrats can't really claim to be any more on the side of [i]science[/i] than the Republicans.
-
Edited by Dredd: 12/27/2013 1:32:21 AMAnd? Who cares what they do? There is still absolutely no proof of anthropological climate change. Also, the other side is just as horrible and denies/lies just as much.
-
OH NO! Not the big bad conservatives! They are the devil. Its not like the earth just naturally goes through phases of getting hotter or colder!
-
Edited by Big John: 12/26/2013 4:55:00 PMWhen the false narrative went from global warming to climate change it was instantly over for any future scam artists. The climate changes that’s what climates do praise God! Now we have a department of energy that produces no energy.
-
Earth has gone through multiple periods of hot and cold even before industrialization and man for that matter. We are not the main culprits that causes something to occur naturally
-
Global Whining.
-
Edited by MoReCoWbELLx2x1: 12/26/2013 6:44:18 PMO lord hear it comes. Since you people are so adamant on proving that global warming is MOSTLY man made, answer me this. Why are we still technically in the ending of a ice age right now? [spoiler]contrary to popular belief a ice age doesn't mean the world is completely covered in ice[/spoiler] Why has the earth gone through these changes before, WITHOUT humans?
-
I don't see how this has anything to do with the legitimacy of the claim that humans have little to no involvement in climate change. Just because the claim is supported by funds earned illegally doesn't mean it isn't true.
-
Not surprised that this happens.