Demanding climate justice from Cancun to Toronto - Discussion with a global warming advocate

I've taken to posting on Rabble.ca. It is great fun tweaking lefties and injecting some hard facts into debates. Here is a sliver of a dialogue where the entry of a hard fact can't be ignored. The hard fact is $16 million. I'll spare you the article.


Submitted by 2dawall on December 29, 2010 - 7:43pm.

All of the Western governments are completely beholden to corporate interests. Reagan did not reduce power of the state; he used its power to destroy the air traffic union. He did escalate the removal of some social welfare elements but that is hardly the same thing.

The vast majority of scientists confirm the anthropocentric nature of the Green House Effect. The very fact that the PR campaign to deny it mimics the campaign to deny the cancerous effects of smoking are not coincidental.



http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf



http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2
»

Submitted by RDP on December 30, 2010 - 7:34pm.

I downloaded the exxon report and briefly read it. Here is what sticks out to me.

From page 4, exxon in 2005 netted $36 billion in net profit. From page 1, exxon has funneled $16 million between 1998 to 2005 to various organizations that the report states manufacturer uncertaninty. $16 million...is this a typo? $16 million divided by 7 years is roughly $2.28 million per year. You would think that this vast corporate disinformation campaign spearheaded by Exxon would "buck up" a little more than .06% of their 2005 profit.

Sorry, it is a vast report severely damning Exxon but when you follow the money, the flow of money (or lack there of) simply undermines the theories of the report.

The appendix letters and documents appear to me to be concerns of those who disagree with Kyoto. I don't smell any conspiracy or plot to conspire.
»

Submitted by M. Spector on December 31, 2010 - 3:58pm.

You think $16 milion doesn't buy a heck of a lot of disinformation when spent in the right places?

How much are you being paid to spread your disinformation? I bet it's a lot less than that.
»



Submitted by RDP on December 31, 2010 - 6:25pm.

If Exxon is worried about protecting their $36 billion in profit, it makes substantial sense to spend a lot more.

Exxon is financing the global warming industry through their tax dollars a heck of a lot more than they are financing any disinformation campaign.

Exxon spends $16 million. Al Gore alone likely spends multiples of that. His movie likely cost at least triple that to produce. David Suzuki has his own weekly television show.

Exxon needs to spend ten time what they do just to level the playing field. How much in governmental grants do these warming scientists receive? They owe a big thank you to Exxon for the tax money.

And, no $16 million doesn't buy a lot of disinformation even if it is spent in the right places.




»



Submitted by RDP on December 31, 2010 - 6:28pm.

Ps Mr. Spector

That is $16 million over 7 years. $2.5 million per year buys 50 commercial spots, on a shoddy channel, per year.
»

* edit