Social Question

ETpro's avatar

How much evidence do we need that Polluters and Anti-Environmentalists are funding scientists who will deny human activity is causing global warming?

Asked by ETpro (34232 points ) October 22nd, 2011

It’s interesting the climate change deniers lost someone they thought was an ally, UC Berkeley Physics Professor,“Richard Muller” Muller wasn’t a denier per se, but he was a skeptic. More than just interesting, it is telling that the denier industry is now claiming Muller’s work is flawed because the answer it provided didn’t suit what they want the truth to be.

Thinking he could be used to help the fossil fuel industry push for more polluting and the destructing of the EPA, the Koch Brothers, champions of right-wing causes and polluting industries like Coal, arranged to have the Charles G. Koch Foundation provide Dr. Muller a grant for the Earth Surface Temperature Project.

But now that the project has led to even more evidence that Global Warming is real and human activity is causing it, the right has abandoned him. Still, with $37 billion in annual revenues, the fossil fuel industry will certainly find some scientists in some disciplines that will assist with their disinformation program. Remember the success that Big Tobacco had in bribing scientists to claim tobacco smoking was perfectly safe and nicotine was not addictive.

Interestingly, many of the same “Science Foundations” and PR firms that led the Tobacco is Safe disinformation effort are now working for Big Coal & Oil.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

2 Answers

wonderingwhy's avatar

None. Actually, the way I see it, such arguments could even be considered to be beside the point. Even if global warming continues to be significantly confused to prevent clear action I’ve seen little to suggest moving to cleaner more sustainable energy sources is negative in the long term. And I’ve seen nothing yet that leads me to believe more environmental damage/destruction/contamination is better than less in a global view. Even if it were to be unequivocally proven that man has not contributed to global warming (which is difficult for me to believe), how about the health benefits of cleaning up our act?

In the mean time, greater transparency in grant funding for published research and independent analysis of conflicts of interest would go a long way in this and other areas.

ETpro's avatar

That’s an excellent point. It’s something we are going to have to do, and the sooner it’s done the less money we have to ship offshore to nations that mostly hate us and would like to bury us.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther