|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 9:40 pm Post subject: Climate change - the Denial Industry |
 |
|
| Quote: |
The denial industry
The oil giant ExxonMobil gives money to scores of organisations that claim the science on global warming is inconclusive - which it isn't. It's a strategy that has set back action on climate change by a decade, and it involves the same people who insist that passive smoking is harmless, reveals George Monbiot in the first of three extracts from his new book
Tuesday September 19, 2006
The Guardian
ExxonMobil is the world's most profitable corporation. Its sales now amount to more than $1bn a day. It makes most of this money from oil, and has more to lose than any other company from efforts to tackle climate change. To safeguard its profits, ExxonMobil needs to sow doubt about whether serious action needs to be taken on climate change. But there are difficulties: it must confront a scientific consensus as strong as that which maintains that smoking causes lung cancer or that HIV causes Aids. So what's its strategy?
The website Exxonsecrets.org, using data found in the company's official documents, lists 124 organisations that have taken money from the company or work closely with those that have. These organisations take a consistent line on climate change: that the science is contradictory, the scientists are split, environmentalists are charlatans, liars or lunatics, and if governments took action to prevent global warming, they would be endangering the global economy for no good reason. The findings these organisations dislike are labelled "junk science". The findings they welcome are labelled "sound science".
Among the organisations that have been funded by Exxon are such well-known websites and lobby groups as TechCentralStation, the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation. Some of those on the list have names that make them look like grassroots citizens' organisations or academic bodies: the Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, for example. One or two of them, such as the Congress of Racial Equality, are citizens' organisations or academic bodies, but the line they take on climate change is very much like that of the other sponsored groups. While all these groups are based in America, their publications are read and cited, and their staff are interviewed and quoted, all over the world.
By funding a large number of organisations, Exxon helps to create the impression that doubt about climate change is widespread. For those who do not understand that scientific findings cannot be trusted if they have not appeared in peer-reviewed journals, the names of these institutes help to suggest that serious researchers are challenging the consensus. |
For full article click here |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The TRUTH is not out there. Not anymore.
All fall down, go BOOM! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Centre for the Study on CO2. funny.
I was on the 420 forums "a few years" ago having a debate with a fella there who kept saying global warming was a total fraud and threw that website around like it was going outta style. It was kinda intimidating because it seemed so rationalized and it was presented with such conviction (though with a bit of research, I found a few of the scientists had direct ties to major oil companies.
What made it just so fantastic was his claim that...and get THIS.....the "global warming movement as a multi-million dollar a year industry skews and misrepresents scientific facts for self preservation and so that they can continue making skads of cash". Whoa. That blew my mind.
Talk about seeing the not seeing the forest through the trees. I guffawed at this ridiculous point and drove it into the ground.
The one salient point he had: often times graphs are thrown around by environmentalists without a source so it can't be cross-referenced. I have seen rapier do that on (virtually EVERY) occasion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 3:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
funding climate change denial
Read the letter in full here (pdf)
David Adam, environment correspondent
Wednesday September 20, 2006
The Guardian
The Royal Society is worried about climate change lobby groups, including those funded by Exxon. Photograph: Matt Slocum/AP
Britain's leading scientists have challenged the US oil company ExxonMobil to stop funding groups that attempt to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change.
In an unprecedented step, the Royal Society, Britain's premier scientific academy, has written to the oil giant to demand that the company withdraws support for dozens of groups that have "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence".
The scientists also strongly criticise the company's public statements on global warming, which they describe as "inaccurate and misleading".
.....
This is the first time the society has written to a company to challenge its activities. The move reflects mounting concern about the activities of lobby groups that try to undermine the overwhelming scientific evidence that emissions are linked to climate change.
The groups, such as the US Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), whose senior figures have described global warming as a myth, are expected to launch a renewed campaign ahead of a major new climate change report. The CEI responded to the recent release of Al Gore's climate change film, An Inconvenient Truth, with adverts that welcomed increased carbon dioxide pollution.
The latest report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), due to be published in February, is expected to say that climate change could drive the Earth's temperatures higher than previously predicted.
Mr Ward said: "It is now more crucial than ever that we have a debate which is properly informed by the science. For people to be still producing information that misleads people about climate change is unhelpful. The next IPCC report should give people the final push that they need to take action and we can't have people trying to undermine it."
The Royal Society letter also takes issue with ExxonMobil's own presentation of climate science. It strongly criticises the company's "corporate citizenship reports", which claim that "gaps in the scientific basis" make it very difficult to blame climate change on human activity. The letter says: "These statements are not consistent with the scientific literature. It is very difficult to reconcile the misrepresentations of climate change science in these documents with ExxonMobil's claim to be an industry leader." |
For full Guardian article click here |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The threat is from those who accept climate change, not those who deny it
If the biosphere is ruined it will be done by people who know that emissions must be cut - but refuse to alter the way they live
Thursday September 21, 2006
The Guardian
You have to pinch yourself. Until now the Sun has denounced environmentalists as "loonies" and "eco beards". Last week it published "photographic proof that climate change is real". In a page that could have come straight from a Greenpeace pamphlet, it laid down 10 "rules" for its readers to follow: "Use public transport when possible; use energy-saving lightbulbs; turn off electric gadgets at the wall; do not use a tumble dryer ... "
Two weeks ago the Economist also recanted. In the past it has asserted that "Mr Bush was right to reject the prohibitively expensive Kyoto pact". It co-published the Copenhagen Consensus papers, which put climate change at the bottom of the list of global priorities. Now, in a special issue devoted to scaring the living daylights out of its readers, it maintains that "the slice of global output that would have to be spent to control emissions is probably ... below 1%". It calls for carbon taxes and an ambitious programme of government spending.
Almost everywhere, climate change denial now looks as stupid and as unacceptable as Holocaust denial. But I'm not celebrating yet. The danger is not that we will stop talking about climate change, or recognising that it presents an existential threat to humankind. The danger is that we will talk ourselves to kingdom come.
If the biosphere is wrecked, it will not be done by those who couldn't give a damn about it, as they now belong to a diminishing minority. It will be destroyed by nice, well-meaning, cosmopolitan people who accept the case for cutting emissions, but who won't change by one iota the way they live. I know people who profess to care deeply about global warming, but who would sooner drink Toilet Duck than get rid of their Agas, patio heaters and plasma TVs, all of which are staggeringly wasteful. A recent brochure published by the Co-operative Bank boasts that its "solar tower" in Manchester "will generate enough electricity every year to make 9 million cups of tea". On the previous page it urges its customers "to live the dream and purchase that perfect holiday home ... With low cost flights now available, jetting off to your home in the sun at the drop of a hat is far more achievable than you think."
....
This echoes the refusal of Sir David King, the government's chief scientist, to call for a target of less than 550 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere, on the grounds that it would be "politically unrealistic". The message seems to be that the science can go to hell - we will tell people what we think they can bear.
So we all deceive ourselves and deceive each other about the change that needs to take place. The middle classes think they have gone green because they buy organic cotton pyjamas and handmade soaps with bits of leaf in them - though they still heat their conservatories and retain their holiday homes in Croatia. The people who should be confronting them with hard truths balk at the scale of the challenge. And the politicians won't jump until the rest of us do.
....
So the question which now confronts everyone - politicians, campaign groups, scientists, readers of the Guardian as well as the Economist and the Sun - is this: how much reality can you take? Do you really want to stop climate chaos, or do you just want to feel better about yourself? |
To read full article, click here |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Am I the only one who read the topic title as "the DenTal Industry"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gdimension
Joined: 05 Jul 2005
Location: Jeju
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Am I the only one who read the topic title as "the DenTal Industry"? |
Not at all - I was just going to post the same thing. I can't help but think that that would have been a very interesting read... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 11:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have little sympathy. Humans are a greedy and selfish species, the earth is exhausted under our weight. Maybe a race of super c o c k r o a c h e s will succeed us and behave better?
When it happens, it is clear that humans
1) brought it on themselves
2) Had the knowledge but suppressed and subverted it
3) Could have averted it but allowed greed to win out.
4) knowingly caused the xtinction of many other species
5) knowingly exchanged stewardship of the earth for short term exploitation
6) valued material objects more than what was alive
7) altered, tampered with, and destroyed every natural process and habitat to cater to their short term gain.
 Bit the hand that fed them -nature.
and so on. in short...the choice was made: sustainable existence with the earth, or ultimate demise by damaging the earths natural and life-giving processes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| I have little sympathy. Humans are a greedy and selfish species, the earth is exhausted under our weight. Maybe a race of super c o c k r o a c h e s will succeed us and behave better? |
You done anything lately to save the world? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Junior wrote: |
| I have little sympathy. Humans are a greedy and selfish species, the earth is exhausted under our weight. Maybe a race of super c o c k r o a c h e s will succeed us and behave better? |
You done anything lately to save the world? |
-believe it or not, yes. Plenty. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 7:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Pundits who contest climate change should tell us who is paying them
Covert lobbying, in the UK as well as the US, has severely set back efforts to combat the world's biggest problem
George Monbiot
Tuesday September 26, 2006
The Guardian
On the letters page of the Guardian last week, a Dr Alan Kendall attacked the Royal Society for "smearing" its opponents. The society had sent an official letter to Exxon, complaining about the oil company's "inaccurate and misleading" portrayal of the science of climate change and about its funding of lobby groups that deny global warming is taking place. The letter, Kendall argued, was an attempt to "stifle legitimate discussion".
Perhaps he is unaware of what has been happening. The campaign of dissuasion funded by Exxon and the tobacco company Philip Morris has been devastatingly effective. By insisting that man-made global warming is either a "myth" or not worth tackling, it has given the media and politicians the excuses for inaction they wanted. Partly as a result, in the US at least, these companies have helped to delay attempts to tackle the world's most important problem by a decade or more. |
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1880825,00.html
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 4:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
-meanwhile, the latest on global warming!
Global temperature reaches new high
September 26 2006 at 01:54AM
Washington - The Earth's temperature has climbed to levels not seen in thousands of years - global warming that has begun to affect plants and animals, researchers report in Tuesday's issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The Earth has been warming at a rate of 0.2�C per decade for the last 30 years, according to the research team led by James Hansen of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.
That brings the overall temperature to the warmest in the current interglacial period, which began about 12 000 years ago.
The researchers noted that a report in the journal Nature found that 1 700 plant, animal and insect species moved poleward at an average rate of about six kilometres per decade in the last half of the 20th century.
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=31&art_id=qw1159216203533B251 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Don't remember where I saw it, but new report on global temps: just below the high for the last MILLION years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 10:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/print?id=2273111
| Quote: |
Al Gore YouTube Spoof Not So Amateurish
Republican PR Firm Said to Be Behind 'Inconvenient Truth' Spoof
By JAKE TAPPER and MAX CULHANE
Aug. 4, 2006 � - A tiny little movie making fun of Al Gore, supposedly made by an amateur filmmaker, recently appeared on the popular Web site YouTube.com.
At first blush, the spoof seemed like a scrappy little homemade film ... ...But when the Wall Street Journal tried to find the guy who posted the film "Al Gore's Penguin Army" -- listed on YouTube as a 29-year-old -- they found the movie didn't come from an amateur working out of his basement.
The film actually came from a slick Republican public relations firm called DCI, which just happens to have oil giant Exxon as a client.
Exxon denies knowing anything about the film, and DCI says, "We do not disclose the names of our clients, nor do we discuss the work we do on behalf of our clients."
Distrust of Mainstream Media
Media ethicists say that if DCI is behind the spoof, they should fess up.
"Without the disclosure, it's really ethically questionable," said Diane Farsetta, a senior researcher at the Center for Media and Democracy. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 7:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
[quote="Junior"]I have little sympathy. Humans are a greedy and selfish species, the earth is exhausted under our weight. Maybe a race of super c o c k r o a c h e s will succeed us and behave better?
When it happens, it is clear that humans
1) brought it on themselves |
True, but as simplistic as saying humans had nothing to do with it and it isn't real. IOW, bullshit.
| Quote: |
| 2) Had the knowledge but suppressed and subverted it |
Yes. YOUR humans. Not the middle. Not the liberals. Not the Libertarians. YOUR HUMANS... the Right.
| Quote: |
| 3) Could have averted it but allowed greed to win out. |
See above.
| Quote: |
| 4) knowingly caused the xtinction of many other species |
See above.
| Quote: |
| 5) knowingly exchanged stewardship of the earth for short term exploitation |
See above.
| Quote: |
| 6) valued material objects more than what was alive |
Yes, pretty much across the board.
| Quote: |
| 7) altered, tampered with, and destroyed every natural process and habitat to cater to their short term gain. |
Skewed to the Right, especially over the last 10 years, when we might have still done something about it...
| Quote: |
| Bit the hand that fed them -nature. |
Repetitious. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
