Exxon-Mobil fund climate change deniers

Who is behind climate change deniers?

Quote:

In May this year, the multibillion-dollar oil giant Exxon-Mobil acknowledged that it had been doing something similar. It announced that it would cease funding nine groups that had fuelled a global campaign to deny climate change. Exxon's decision comes after a shareholder revolt by members of the Rockefeller family and big superannuation funds to get the oil giant to take climate change more seriously. Exxon (once Standard Oil) was founded by the legendary John D. Rockefeller. Last year, the chairman of the US House of Representatives oversight committee on science and technology, Brad Miller, said Exxon's support for sceptics "appears to be an effort to distort public discussion". The funding of an array of think tanks and institutes that house climate sceptics and deniers also worried Britain's premier scientific body, the Royal Society. It found that in 2005 Exxon distributed nearly $3 million to 39 groups that "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence that greenhouse gases are driving climate change". It asked Exxon to stop the funding and its protests helped force Exxon's recent retreat.

Does "misrepresented" means lied....? ..or..mislead...?

Quote:

But perhaps the oil companies' PR campaign is not the main reason for the success of the climate change deniers. There are at least three others. First, the implications of the science are frightening. Shifting to renewable energy will be costly and disruptive. Second, doubt is an easy product to sell. Climate denial tells us what we all secretly want to hear. Third, science is portrayed by the free market right as a political "orthodoxy", rather than objective knowledge. The tide slowly turned on tobacco denial and the science was accepted in the end. But climate is different. There are no "smoke-free areas" on the planet. Climate denial may turn out to be the world's most deadly PR campaign.

Assuming that you started this thread to talk about an issue, Ken, instead of just attacking again, I'll then also assume that you just don't know well how to cherry pick quotes without appearing to attack.

So, is the issue here trying to understand "the success of the climate change deniers"? If so, here are some additional points to consider:

1) Name calling ("climate change deniers") has divided the issue even further. Anyone who dares raise questions about the "consensus" is labeled a kook, a nut, a "climate change denier". Once upon a time, skepticism was encouraged in science, as it makes people prove their point conclusively, instead of just declaring that the debate is over. There are many scientists who aren't convinced one way or the other, but "your side" seems to be more interested in deriding them than proving their point.

2) Ever changing models. One "proof" of global warming is models that can't possibly be taken as proof since they change on what seems to be a daily basis, and still don't take every known factor into account (like the sun).

3) Selective statistics. Facts like the cooling that's occurred in the last 10 years are ignored. Facts like previous warming periods, that always happened before increases in greenhouse gasses, are ignored. We could go on.

4) Changing Terminology. This is actually a symptom of #3. Since the facts don't always conveniently line up, rather than re-evaluate the hypothesis, the answer by the "climate change alarmists" (sorry, don't know a better term) has been to change the debate. Rather than "global warming" it's now "climate change". However, that's got to be the worst name ever - the only constant in our climate is change!

5) Unrealistic "solutions". I don't know anyone who is against sifting to renewable resources. It just makes sense in the long run. I don't know anyone who is against decreased energy usage. Again, it makes sense in the long run. What everyone I know is against is what the "climate change alarmists" are proposing - immediately cutting energy usage by drastic, unrealistic amounts, and investing trillions in renewables like ethanol without first doing the proper science to determine the impacts (just look at food prices).