Society/Culture Rolling Stone vs. Big Coal/Big Oil

[bit_pattern]

Behind the PR campaign that has mobilised against action on climate change.

As the World Burns

How Big Oil and Big Coal mounted one of the most aggressive lobbying campaigns in history to block progress on global warming

JEFF GOODELLPosted Jan 06, 2010 8:15 AM

 

[medusala]

Behind the PR campaign that has mobilised against action on climate change.

A pathetic effort riddled with mistakes. Big oil didnt kill Copenhagen, the Chinese did. Heritage doesnt produce junk science, its well respected. Of course it takes money from oil companies why would a libertarian/free market think tank not do so?

Has Obama even signed the Kyoto protocol yet?

The coal oil spent $10m on lobbying? So what? Is that somehow illegal? The unions gave $60m odd to Obama to get elected.

This is the sort of gibberish this guy turns out.

http://www.coal-is-dirty.com/how-clean-coal-cooks-your-brain

Meanwhile, the need to reduce CO2 emissions grows more urgent every year. As NASA climatologist James Hansen has repeatedly pointed out, continuing to burn coal the old-fashioned way is a sure-fire way to melt Greenland and turn Miami into an aquarium.

 

[HarryTiger]

This is worth breaking lurk mode for.

Guess who?

Hmmm, Rolling Stone, now THERE is a quality source

(post #43, the "who do deniers vote for" thread)

 

[bit_pattern]

Clean coal IS a joke, there isn't even anything close to a working example of carbon sequestration, it's a bad joke. Nuclear is better than "clean" coal. And Heritage might be "well respected" for it's economics but not for it's science, unless of course you happen to think tobacco is harmless, lol, how quickly suckers like you forget history. Your slavish commitment to the ideology of "libertarianism" blinds you, Meds, it's kind of sad.

 

[bit_pattern]

This is worth breaking lurk mode for.

Guess who?



(post #43, the "who do deniers vote for" thread)

lol, oh snap! I only really posted it for the headline anyway, see Meds' Rolling Stone vs. Goldman Sachs thread. I just knew this would make him apoplectic

But, yeah, I'll pay that one Harry

Still a good article though...

 

[HarryTiger]

Well the GS one was a bit of a beat-up I admit even though I cited it. This one starts off by telling me about the longer and more deadly droughts, insects devouring forests... not the record cold spells of course or Australia's drought breaking rainfall. But I'm persisting with it.

 

[medusala]

Clean coal IS a joke, there isn't even anything close to a working example of carbon sequestration, it's a bad joke.

Probably and probably likely to be a very expensive one

And Heritage might be "well respected" for it's economics but not for it's science, unless of course you happen to think tobacco is harmless, lol, how quickly suckers like you forget history.

This is what you refuse to acknowledge, Heritage and other such think tanks and economists generally dont attack the details re climate change they attack the economics. This is also the argument of Lawson. The economic case is nothing like what the propagandists would have you believe.

It does not mean they are all "deniers", Tol being just one example.

Your slavish commitment to the ideology of "libertarianism" blinds you, Meds, it's kind of sad

Consistency is a virtue.

Have to love BF where a commitment to freedom is seen as sad.