Smithsonian Magazine: Meet the money behind climate change denial

  • 62 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for Shewgenja
#1 Posted by Shewgenja (21456 posts) -

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/meet-the-money-behind-the-climate-denial-movement-180948204/

Not entirely unlike when Big Oil was spending money to deny that there were health risks with leaded gasoline. (Yes, that happened, look it up.)

Avatar image for horgen
#2 Posted by Horgen (120611 posts) -

@Shewgenja: Post something from the article itself. Something to start a discussion with without having to open the link. As it is now the topic will be locked.

Avatar image for comp_atkins
#3 Posted by comp_atkins (35741 posts) -

if they were smart, they'd work to knee-cap science education in the US.

the more scientifically illiterate people living here, the better their chances of convincing people the science of climate change is bullshit.

Avatar image for zaryia
#4 Posted by Zaryia (9043 posts) -

Wow great article.

Avatar image for judaspete
#5 Posted by judaspete (2991 posts) -

It's an incresible scheme they have going on. At this point, most oil companies publicly admit that humans are at least partly respondsible for the changes we are currently seeing in our climate, but their surrogate mouth pieces have so thoroughly endoctrinated so many people that nothing has changed. When one cigarette company finally admitted nicotine was addictive, that whole house of cards fell down.

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
#6 Edited by HoolaHoopMan (10786 posts) -

@comp_atkins said:

if they were smart, they'd work to knee-cap science education in the US.

the more scientifically illiterate people living here, the better their chances of convincing people the science of climate change is bullshit.

Seems like they're not doing half bad.

Avatar image for n64dd
#7 Posted by N64DD (11925 posts) -
@zaryia said:

Wow great article.

Paid by George Soros.

Avatar image for zaryia
#8 Posted by Zaryia (9043 posts) -
@n64dd said:
@zaryia said:

Wow great article.

Paid by George Soros.

You sound like that Tree of Life shooter.

Avatar image for n64dd
#9 Posted by N64DD (11925 posts) -
@zaryia said:
@n64dd said:
@zaryia said:

Wow great article.

Paid by George Soros.

You sound like that Tree of Life shooter.

Losing the argument that bad eh?

Avatar image for zaryia
#10 Edited by Zaryia (9043 posts) -
@n64dd said:
@zaryia said:
@n64dd said:
@zaryia said:

Wow great article.

Paid by George Soros.

You sound like that Tree of Life shooter.

Losing the argument that bad eh?

You didn't have an argument. You're just trolling with alt-right and/or anti-Semitic talking points to dismiss this article, ones that are likely completely fabricated (I don't see a link of Soros funding the studies Smithsonian used).

Feel free to find citation debunking the data in the report and/or the studies linked in the report, so we can actually have a real argument.

Avatar image for jeezers
#11 Posted by jeezers (3018 posts) -

Both sides of the debate have big money interest in pushing thier side.

I like what Dan Pena aka the 50 billion dollar man had to say on it https://youtu.be/NjlC02NsIt0

If the oceans are going to go up 10 to 100 feet in 40-50 years. Why would banks give out loans for beach side property, they know its bs.

We were told we would be under water by 2012, how many companies can make a dollar by pushing rhetoric that if they dont get billions of dollars to turn the tide the world is going to end.

Avatar image for vfighter
#12 Posted by VFighter (5015 posts) -

@zaryia: I see you'll never stop being delusional, its actually sad at this point.

Avatar image for zaryia
#13 Edited by Zaryia (9043 posts) -
@vfighter said:

@zaryia: I see you'll never stop being delusional, its actually sad at this point.

Huh? Please tell me what was wrong in this Smithsonian report. Offer peer reviewed studies as citation. I also see no mention of George Soros.

You do know that typing "delusional" when someone posts facts you don't like doesn't actually alter said facts right? Sorry but I'm going to add this one to the list:

  • https://www.gamespot.com/forums/political-gamers-909409192/did-trump-and-the-far-right-accidentally-create-sj-33458326/?page=1#js-message-356206366
  • https://www.gamespot.com/forums/political-gamers-909409192/us-successfully-removes-sexual-health-references-f-33457477/?page=1#js-message-356195158
  • https://www.gamespot.com/forums/political-gamers-909409192/white-supremacist-coast-guard-lieutenant-was-alleg-33452614/?page=1#js-message-356124703
  • https://www.gamespot.com/forums/political-gamers-909409192/milla-jovovich-opens-up-about-emergency-abortion-33459451/?page=1#js-message-356222428
  • https://www.gamespot.com/forums/political-gamers-909409192/smithsonian-magazine-meet-the-money-behind-climate-33461280/?page=1#js-message-356250049
  • https://www.gamespot.com/forums/system-wars-314159282/ughseems-every-pc-game-is-filled-with-cheaters-33458974/?page=3#js-message-356215054

Apparently me directly citing or using the Smithsonian, World Health Organization, Government Accountability Office, US Census Bureau, US Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the FBI are delusions.

Avatar image for zaryia
#14 Edited by Zaryia (9043 posts) -
@jeezers said:

Both sides of the debate have big money interest in pushing thier side.

The thing is one side of this "debate" is correct, the other isn't.

Also why would you link a video to Dan Pena, he's a bogus climate denier.

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/video-falsely-claiming-to-be-barron-trump-also-falsely-claims-humans-arent-causing-climate-change/

We were told we would be under water by 2012,

Was this the scientific consensus?

Avatar image for jeezers
#15 Posted by jeezers (3018 posts) -

@zaryia: https://www.washingtonpost.com/solyndra-politics-infused-obama-energy-programs/2011/12/14/gIQA4HllHP_story.html?utm_term=.bfd42a24c080

Global warming has infused its self with the democratic party, its not even about fixing global warming, its about having a fear mongering issue to run on. They will throw away billions, change nothing, and have you convinced they are making a difference.

Avatar image for zaryia
#16 Edited by Zaryia (9043 posts) -
@jeezers said:

@zaryia: https://www.washingtonpost.com/solyndra-politics-infused-obama-energy-programs/2011/12/14/gIQA4HllHP_story.html?utm_term=.bfd42a24c080

Global warming has infused its self with the democratic party, its not even about fixing global warming, its about having a fear mongering issue to run on. They will throw away billions, change nothing, and have you convinced they are making a difference.

Yes, facts about global warming have taken hold of the Democratic Party, oh the Humanity! While a small handful of them do exaggerate the facts, at least they are doing something about it.

The other side doesn't even believe the problem exists and are literally on the wrong side of science. That's far worse and considerably more dangerous.

Avatar image for jeezers
#17 Posted by jeezers (3018 posts) -

@zaryia: but they arent doing something, just throwing money away at failing projects, its about looking good and getting votes.

Theres nothing the united states can do to reverse it, especially when countries like China and India refuse to do anything.

Climate change is real, the climate always has changed. The argument is about how much of the change is due to mankind and how much is a natural occurrence.

Either way there have been people saying we only have 10-20 years to do something untill its too late for over 60 years...

Avatar image for zaryia
#18 Edited by Zaryia (9043 posts) -
@jeezers said:

@zaryia: but they arent doing something, just throwing money away at failing projects, its about looking good and getting votes.

That's because they aren't in power. The Dem candidates are proposing plans that would at least help. Meanwhile the GOP and President don't even think it's real for crying out loud. They are literally WRONG.

That's far far worse.

@jeezers said:

Climate change is real, the climate always has changed. The argument is about how much of the change is due to mankind and how much is a natural occurrence.

Either way there have been people saying we only have 10-20 years to do something untill its too late for over 60 years...

1. "The climate has always changed". Denier talking point. It has not changed like this and it is quite problematic.

https://nexusmedianews.com/from-ice-ages-to-interglacial-periods-the-climate-has-always-changed-3592bc06f5a8

2. "The argument is how much of the change is due to mankind". That's not the argument within the GOP. Many still think it isn't man made at all. The fact is man has had an influence.

Avatar image for n64dd
#19 Posted by N64DD (11925 posts) -
@zaryia said:
@jeezers said:

@zaryia: but they arent doing something, just throwing money away at failing projects, its about looking good and getting votes.

That's because they aren't in power. The Dem candidates are proposing plans that would at least help. Meanwhile the GOP and President don't even think it's real for crying out loud. They are literally WRONG.

That's far far worse.

@jeezers said:

Climate change is real, the climate always has changed. The argument is about how much of the change is due to mankind and how much is a natural occurrence.

Either way there have been people saying we only have 10-20 years to do something untill its too late for over 60 years...

1. "The climate has always changed". Denier talking point. It has not changed like this and it is quite problematic.

https://nexusmedianews.com/from-ice-ages-to-interglacial-periods-the-climate-has-always-changed-3592bc06f5a8

2. "The argument is how much of the change is due to mankind". That's not the argument within the GOP. Many still think it isn't man made at all. The fact is man has had an influence.

My problem is that the human influence is over stated and people act like the earth is going to blow up.

I think we can agree we can treat the planet a lot better though.

Avatar image for br0kenrabbit
#20 Edited by br0kenrabbit (16077 posts) -

@n64dd said:

My problem is that the human influence is over stated and people act like the earth is going to blow up.

The human influence is more than most people understand. As a pilot I get a birds eye view of disappearing forests and mountains (mountain top removal mining). It is devastating.

Is the Earth going to die if we don't stop? No, no it's pretty resilient.

But we might die. In large numbers. From tragedies that are still avoidable.

I don't know about you, but I have a vested interest in the health of the human race as a whole.

Avatar image for zaryia
#21 Edited by Zaryia (9043 posts) -
@n64dd said:

My problem is that the human influence is over stated and people act like the earth is going to blow up.

A few Dems overstating the human influence is far more safe than a large number of GOP thinking it's not even real and doing nothing.

In fact not even doing nothing, but straight up denying the facts and saying it is false and attempting to thwart future studies.

Avatar image for n64dd
#22 Posted by N64DD (11925 posts) -
@zaryia said:
@n64dd said:

My problem is that the human influence is over stated and people act like the earth is going to blow up.

A few Dems overstating the human influence is far more safe than a large number of GOP thinking it's not even real and doing nothing.

In fact not even doing nothing, but straight up denying the facts and saying it is false and attempting to thwart future studies.

I have 0 issue treating our planet better through personal ambition or policy.

Avatar image for kadin_kai
#23 Posted by Kadin_Kai (505 posts) -

@zaryia

When you said, China does nothing about climate change, did you form your opinion based on anything factual?

Let me tell you some facts. China produces more solar power than any other country, this is also true with hydropower and wind power.

Guess which country also has the most electric vehicles? It’s China.

The fact is, China has made a huge push for clean energy in the past 10 years. And to be a little more precise, analysts expect China to over-deliver on its Paris Climate treaty agreement. Yes that’s over-deliver and earlier than the agree time frame as well!

They have also shutdown hundreds of coal fired power plants (especially the older ones which has much lower emissions).

What you wrote is actually the complete opposite of the reality. You really need to learn facts before you open your mouth or in this case write.

Avatar image for zaryia
#24 Posted by Zaryia (9043 posts) -
@kadin_kai said:

@zaryia

When you said, China does nothing about climate change, did you form your opinion based on anything factual?

Let me tell you some facts. China produces more solar power than any other country, this is also true with hydropower and wind power.

Guess which country also has the most electric vehicles? It’s China.

The fact is, China has made a huge push for clean energy in the past 10 years. And to be a little more precise, analysts expect China to over-deliver on its Paris Climate treaty agreement. Yes that’s over-deliver and earlier than the agree time frame as well!

They have also shutdown hundreds of coal fired power plants (especially the older ones which has much lower emissions).

What you wrote is actually the complete opposite of the reality. You really need to learn facts before you open your mouth or in this case write.

Completely agreed but you mean to write @jeezers lol

Avatar image for joebones5000
#25 Posted by joebones5000 (2358 posts) -

Let's be honest. At this point, the only people who don't understand that climate change is real and that it is driven mostly by man's actions are the same type of goofballs who vote for people like Donald Trump and Louie Gomert. Is it really even worth engaging that level of stupidity?

Avatar image for kadin_kai
#26 Posted by Kadin_Kai (505 posts) -

@jeezers @zaryia: In that case I apologise. His comment was structured as if you wrote it.

Avatar image for Maroxad
#27 Edited by Maroxad (15263 posts) -

@jeezers:

Before you blame India or china, you should probably look at the facts first. On a per capita basis, India is actually pretty damn low. Which is pretty impressive considering the country is still industrializing.

India has been working hard to reduce emissions by investing heavily into solar, and is now one of hte largest producers of renewable energy in the world. Around 34% of India's energy comes from renewable sources.

The US has one of the highest polluters on a per Capita Basis in the world. On a Per Capita basis, the US pollutes nearly 10 times as much as India and more than twice as much as China.

Avatar image for n64dd
#28 Posted by N64DD (11925 posts) -

@zaryia: how is saying george soros funds a lot of liberal politics(which he does) anti-semetic? I don’t even think you understand what you post anymore.

Avatar image for zaryia
#29 Edited by Zaryia (9043 posts) -
@n64dd said:

@zaryia: how is saying george soros funds a lot of liberal politics(which he does) anti-semetic? I don’t even think you understand what you post anymore.

1. Climate Change facts aren't liberal politics. They aren't even politics. They are just facts. Please do not say stupid things.

2. Because you provided no proof this specific article or more importantly the studies it uses are funded by Soros, you just randomly used that line as some kinda shitpost. You randomly spouted it off as a conspiracy theory, which Antisemitism do. Even if Soros did fund it, the fact you used his name alone as a point of deflection is a tactic antisemitism actually do use. You may not be an anti-Semite but you are using their playbook.

It's actually a quite regularlyused talking point by anti-Semitics to blame Soros for everything and providing no proof. Especially in the manner you used it. Word for Word. Sorry bro, that's not on me. That's on you. It is a dangerous conspiracy theory to randomly say Soros and other Jews funds anything you don't like, much less without evidence and not actually attempting to debunk the article with DATA AND FACTS. Like the Tree of Life shooter did with the Caravan.

Stop trolling please. Almost all of your posts here make 0 sense or are stupid memes.

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
#30 Posted by mrbojangles25 (44045 posts) -

@br0kenrabbit said:
@n64dd said:

My problem is that the human influence is over stated and people act like the earth is going to blow up.

The human influence is more than most people understand. As a pilot I get a birds eye view of disappearing forests and mountains (mountain top removal mining). It is devastating.

Is the Earth going to die if we don't stop? No, no it's pretty resilient.

But we might die. In large numbers. From tragedies that are still avoidable.

I don't know about you, but I have a vested interest in the health of the human race as a whole.

Sadly most people don't look any further than their grandkid's generation. "What do I care, I Won't be around"

Avatar image for Maroxad
#31 Posted by Maroxad (15263 posts) -

Fun fact: In most parts of the world, Liberals AND Conservative parties take climate change seriously.

I voted for a center right party, who takes environmentalism seriously. In the EU elections.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#32 Posted by LJS9502_basic (166615 posts) -

@Maroxad said:

Fun fact: In most parts of the world, Liberals AND Conservative parties take climate change seriously.

I voted for a center right party, who takes environmentalism seriously. In the EU elections.

Unfortunately in the US we have a cult of personality and the conservatives won't deviate toward reality if they think it undermines their leader.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
#33 Posted by mattbbpl (17222 posts) -

@Maroxad: Yeah, but we're nuts. we've taken right wing viewpoints, shoved them as far to the right as feasible, and turned them into a religion.

Climate change can't be real. If it were, the market would fix it.

Avatar image for br0kenrabbit
#34 Posted by br0kenrabbit (16077 posts) -

@mrbojangles25 said:

Sadly most people don't look any further than their grandkid's generation. "What do I care, I Won't be around"

Around here it's "JESUS is coming soon!" But same, short-sighted mentality.

Avatar image for musicalmac
#35 Posted by musicalmac (25026 posts) -

What a pity to see this in a magazine utilizing the Smithsonian name. This belongs in Time or Slate or some other rag.

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
#36 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (10786 posts) -

@musicalmac said:

What a pity to see this in a magazine utilizing the Smithsonian name. This belongs in Time or Slate or some other rag.

What do you disagree with in the article?

Avatar image for musicalmac
#37 Posted by musicalmac (25026 posts) -

@HoolaHoopMan said:
@musicalmac said:

What a pity to see this in a magazine utilizing the Smithsonian name. This belongs in Time or Slate or some other rag.

What do you disagree with in the article?

How is the article scientific?

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
#38 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (10786 posts) -

@musicalmac said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:
@musicalmac said:

What a pity to see this in a magazine utilizing the Smithsonian name. This belongs in Time or Slate or some other rag.

What do you disagree with in the article?

How is the article scientific?

I'm failing to see how that is relevant to what I asked. But to answer your question, they link straight to the research studies conducted by the author mentioned (Drexel University).

So, what do you disagree with in the article?

Avatar image for musicalmac
#39 Posted by musicalmac (25026 posts) -

@HoolaHoopMan said:
@musicalmac said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:
@musicalmac said:

What a pity to see this in a magazine utilizing the Smithsonian name. This belongs in Time or Slate or some other rag.

What do you disagree with in the article?

How is the article scientific?

I'm failing to see how that is relevant to what I asked. But to answer your question, they link straight to the research studies conducted by the author mentioned (Drexel University).

So, what do you disagree with in the article?

It's political. That's why it's disappointing.

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
#40 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (10786 posts) -

@musicalmac said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:
@musicalmac said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:

What do you disagree with in the article?

How is the article scientific?

I'm failing to see how that is relevant to what I asked. But to answer your question, they link straight to the research studies conducted by the author mentioned (Drexel University).

So, what do you disagree with in the article?

It's political. That's why it's disappointing.

How so? Do you disagree that climate change denial is funded? Or do you disagree with the studies conclusion as to the donors they identified?

Avatar image for musicalmac
#41 Posted by musicalmac (25026 posts) -

@HoolaHoopMan said:
@musicalmac said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:
@musicalmac said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:

What do you disagree with in the article?

How is the article scientific?

I'm failing to see how that is relevant to what I asked. But to answer your question, they link straight to the research studies conducted by the author mentioned (Drexel University).

So, what do you disagree with in the article?

It's political. That's why it's disappointing.

How so? Do you disagree that climate change denial is funded? Or do you disagree with the studies conclusion as to the donors they identified?

How are articles about the flow of money on a clearly politicized issue scientific? It's just not compelling. I don't look to the Smithsonian for politics. We've abandoned wonder for partisanship. It's so pitiful.

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
#42 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (10786 posts) -

@musicalmac said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:

How so? Do you disagree that climate change denial is funded? Or do you disagree with the studies conclusion as to the donors they identified?

How are articles about the flow of money on a clearly politicized issue scientific? It's just not compelling. I don't look to the Smithsonian for politics. We've abandoned wonder for partisanship. It's so pitiful.

Perhaps you should click on the link. The paper is there and outlines methods, sources, concepts, etc, when forming the abstract and conclusion. Do you disagree that large donors fund climate change denial? Yes or No?

Avatar image for musicalmac
#43 Posted by musicalmac (25026 posts) -

@HoolaHoopMan said:
@musicalmac said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:

How so? Do you disagree that climate change denial is funded? Or do you disagree with the studies conclusion as to the donors they identified?

How are articles about the flow of money on a clearly politicized issue scientific? It's just not compelling. I don't look to the Smithsonian for politics. We've abandoned wonder for partisanship. It's so pitiful.

Perhaps you should click on the link. The paper is there and outlines methods, sources, concepts, etc, when forming the abstract and conclusion. Do you disagree that large donors fund climate change denial? Yes or No?

You shouldn't make assumptions. I want science, not politics. It's that simple.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#44 Posted by LJS9502_basic (166615 posts) -

@musicalmac said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:

Perhaps you should click on the link. The paper is there and outlines methods, sources, concepts, etc, when forming the abstract and conclusion. Do you disagree that large donors fund climate change denial? Yes or No?

You shouldn't make assumptions. I want science, not politics. It's that simple.

Seems like you just don't want to hear anything negative about your ideology. Politics is very much front and center lately. And they DID use a scientific approach.

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
#45 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (10786 posts) -

@musicalmac said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:
@musicalmac said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:

How so? Do you disagree that climate change denial is funded? Or do you disagree with the studies conclusion as to the donors they identified?

How are articles about the flow of money on a clearly politicized issue scientific? It's just not compelling. I don't look to the Smithsonian for politics. We've abandoned wonder for partisanship. It's so pitiful.

Perhaps you should click on the link. The paper is there and outlines methods, sources, concepts, etc, when forming the abstract and conclusion. Do you disagree that large donors fund climate change denial? Yes or No?

You shouldn't make assumptions. I want science, not politics. It's that simple.

*Asks for critique of scientific literature linked in article supporting findings*

'I want science, no politics'

*Points out that article links scientific literature a second time'

'I told you I want science'

Who's the hack partisan now?

Avatar image for musicalmac
#46 Posted by musicalmac (25026 posts) -

@HoolaHoopMan said:
@musicalmac said:

You shouldn't make assumptions. I want science, not politics. It's that simple.

*Asks for critique of scientific literature linked in article supporting findings*

'I want science, no politics'

*Points out that article links scientific literature a second time'

'I told you I want science'

Who's the hack partisan now?

The editors at Smithsonian, sadly.

Avatar image for n64dd
#47 Posted by N64DD (11925 posts) -
@musicalmac said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:
@musicalmac said:

You shouldn't make assumptions. I want science, not politics. It's that simple.

*Asks for critique of scientific literature linked in article supporting findings*

'I want science, no politics'

*Points out that article links scientific literature a second time'

'I told you I want science'

Who's the hack partisan now?

The editors at Smithsonian, sadly.

Fine trolling sir, FINE trolling!

*tips glass*

Avatar image for Shewgenja
#48 Edited by Shewgenja (21456 posts) -

Today I learned that science is partisan. It's a good thing that huge money is being spent to deny it. There couldn't possibly be an agenda behind that. No possible way. There is no historic precedent for THAT.

Avatar image for phbz
#49 Posted by phbz (4506 posts) -

If Climate Change is real then why Jesus made dinosaur's juice 10000 years ago? Check mate scientists!

Avatar image for n64dd
#50 Posted by N64DD (11925 posts) -
@phbz said:

If Climate Change is real then why Jesus made dinosaur's juice 10000 years ago? Check mate scientists!

Exactly! Why died the dinosaurs?