» On global warming, who's paying to shoot the messenger?

20 August 2006 - 11:51am

On global warming, who's paying to shoot the messenger?

media girl's picture

Funny how some bloggers of the the right wing is so obsessed with party colors that they cannot see green. Clinging to their delusions in spite of scientific evidence, this past week we marveled as the right wing continued to plug its ears and start shouting wild accusations of pseudo-facts about individuals rather than see what is coming down upon us all: global warming. Gotta hand it to them: these folks are very effective at their GOP-stooge role, repeating anger points generated from Dittohead Command Headquarters. (Inconvenient truths are conveniently ignored.)

In response to my piece on Peter Schweizer's inane attempt to dismiss global warming because of unsubstantiated assertions about Al Gore's personal finances and business ties, I received this email from Lisa Wade Raasch of empowerchange.com that seems to shed new light on all this.

I'll just paste it here and let you read it:

This is yet another in the long string of tactics tied back to Exxon --
the CEI ads, the YouTube penguin video, the skeptic evangelical
response, etc. etc. Exxon gave $295,000 to the Hoover Institution where
Peter Schweizer is a research fellow.

It's amazing, on one hand the global warming skeptics call Gore an
environmental extremist, and on the other they say he isn't extreme
enough to be a credible spokesperson.

[contact info removed. -mg]

Exxon is at it again.
Setting the record straight on Peter Schweizer's misleading USA Today
piece

Peter Schweizer's ("Gore not quite as green.") piece that ran in USA
Today (August 10) was a grossly inaccurate misrepresentation of the
facts.

Unfortunately, Mr. Schweizer's op-ed is the latest in a string of
attacks from organizations receiving money from ExxonMobil-in this case
an attempt to attack the messenger to divert attention from the message
of the climate crisis. Mr. Schweizer is a research fellow at the Hoover
Institution, which has received $295,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
(http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=43)

PETER SCHWEIZER'S MISLEADING CLAIMS:

CLAIM: Schweizer claims that Gore receives royalties from a
zinc mine on his property.

FACT: This charge is false. Gore receives no royalties from the mine,
which shut down in 2003. Like many owners of small farms in Smith
County, Tennessee, the Gores received royalties on their mineral rights
when the mine operated. (A correction ran in USA Today on page 10A.)

CLAIM: Schweizer makes the false assertion that Gore controls stock in
Occidental Petroleum.

FACT: This claim is also false. Gore has never owned stock in
Occidental. His late father, Albert Gore Sr., did work for a number of
years at Occidental. At the time of his death, he owned stock in the
company, all of which was sold almost six years ago. The former Vice
President's mother had a small number of shares in her own name at the
time of her death; that stock was also disposed of by the trustee of her
estate. Mr. Gore is not the trustee.

CLAIM: Schweizer attacks Gore for not using green energy alternatives
at his home.

FACT: Gore was already in the process of adding photovoltaic solar
panels to his home before this scurrilous attack. The Gores have signed
up for every "green power" option their utilities make available.

CLAIM: Schweizer asserts that Gore does not offset his carbon
emissions because Paramount Classics pays for the offsets.
FACT: The Gore's personal carbon offsets are achieved independently of
and in addition to the carbon-neutral leadership shown by Paramount
Classics, Participant Productions and Rodale.
(more)
An Inconvenient Truth: "An Inconvenient Truth" is the first carbon
neutral documentary ever. Paramount Classics and Participant
Productions have worked with Native Energy to offset 100 percent of the
carbon dioxide emissions from air and ground transportation and hotels
for production and promotional activities associated with the
documentary (http://www.paramountvantage.com/blog/?p=35). In addition,
with the book "An Inconvenient Truth," Rodale became the first publisher
to produce a carbon-neutral book. The offsets for "An Inconvenient
Truth" will support New Native American and Alaskan Native wind turbines
and new family dairy farm methane energy projects will deliver clean,
renewable energy to the power grid and displacing power that would
otherwise come from burning fossil fuels.

Generation Investment Management: In addition, Gore co-founded
Generation Investment Management, which invests in companies that are
part of the climate solution. Not only does Generation offset the
carbon emissions of its London and DC offices and business travel
through purchases on the Chicago Climate Exchange to permanently retire
carbon credits, it also offsets the personal home and travel emissions
of all its employees through the CarbonNeutral Company. These offsets
support two projects: 1) a dam-less, "run-of-river" hydro power project
in Bulgaria forecast to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by as much as
10,000 - 13,000 tons per year, and 2) a rural solar electrification
project in India and Sri Lanka to replace the use of dangerous kerosene
lamps that produce high levels of CO2 emissions to light homes with
solar powered lighting systems that produce no CO2.

Current TV: Current TV (www.current.tv), an independent media company
co-founded by Gore that features viewer created content, approved going
carbon neutral at the beginning of 2006, while still in its first year
of operation, and will have completed the process by the end of the
fiscal year.

Reducing CO2 Emissions: Recognizing that we all inevitably emit CO2,
Gore sees offsets as one way to keep total global CO2 emissions in check
and to support alternative "green power" programs in the process. That
said, he believes that the first line of defense is to reduce carbon
emissions as much as possible. Gore works to reduce his overall energy
use by: switching to compact florescent light bulbs, driving a hybrid
vehicle, using green power, adjusting the thermostat a few degrees,
using clock thermostats to make sure no portions of the house are kept
warmer or cooler than needed throughout the day, installing sensors to
ensure that no lights are inadvertently left on in rooms that are not in
use, making a point of flying commercially whenever possible, and
telecommuting when he can.

Al Gore has worked for 30 years to raise awareness about global warming
and to advocate for meaningful solutions. In addition to the very
important role that government (at all levels) and companies must take
to cut emissions of pollution that cause global warming, he urges each
of us to take individual responsibility for our carbon dioxide
emissions. However, he has not asked more from the public than he is
willing to do himself.

Al and Tipper Gore are donating 100-percent of the profits from both the
"An Inconvenient Truth" book and movie to fight against global warming
pollution.

For a bit more context, I recommend David Roberts' post in Grist Magazine.

5
About author
User picture

media girl also blogs at other places.

Comments

manwithanactualbrain's picture
manwithanactualbrain says:

Since Al Gore was offered the opportunity to facilitate serious debate on the underlying science of global climate change, 7 months, 2 weeks, 2 days, 2 hours, 18 minutes, and 43 secondshave elapsed. Despite milking lucrative speaking engagements and book deals with his global warming schtick he declines any such debate. Perhaps he's afraid of the Real Inconvenient Truth.


(20 August 2006 - 12:23pm)
media girl's picture

...but I can't find it.

BTW, what have you done about global warming, aside from scoff and vent hot air?


(20 August 2006 - 12:42pm)
manwithanactualbrain's picture
manwithanactualbrain says:

Boy how you blowhards get upset when someone actually speaks the truth! That is the point. There is NO global warming, OK. That is why Gore refuses this debate. He has no actual scientific proof to back up his hysterical claims. Just follow this linkLink Text if you want to see actual scientific proof to the contrary. But I am sure you do not. Then you would have to believe something that is not "politically correct". Ma I am glad you all are not in power. We would be drivng horses and carraiges again.


(22 August 2006 - 11:49am)
media girl's picture

Gotta love it.

I suppose there's no such thing as the flu, pollution doesn't exist, cancer is caused my moral failings, poverty is just desserts and nobody is dying in Iraq.

You're the proud inheritor of Luddite philosophy. Congratulations on your proud ignorance!


(22 August 2006 - 3:03pm)
manwithanactualbrain's picture
manwithanactualbrain says:

Wow! I am ignorant because I actually have to have scientific evidence to support your and your movements idiodic claims. You can catch the flu, you can see pollution, cancer and poverty are a bummer that you can detect, and we can see the body bags of the poor souls coming back from Irac. Absolutely no correlation to so called "global warming".

Boy I bet the fact that Bush will not sign the ridiculous treaty really gets your goat. Just think as we speak the ice cap of Antartica and the snows of Kilaminjaro are melting. Hurricanes and tornados are getting ready to be unleashed on the earth. And little fish are going blind in Patagonia. And you are powerless to do anything about it. Because Bush is president of the most influential country in the world. And thank God he actually has a brain. Unlike Duh-gore.

Oh I guess you know "global warming" is happening because the "psychics" say so. I understand completely now.


(22 August 2006 - 6:15pm)
media girl's picture

...you invest in down insulation then.


(22 August 2006 - 10:59pm)
manwithanactualbrain's picture
manwithanactualbrain says:

Got me a damn fine down comforter. Thanks for the advice though.


(23 August 2006 - 12:03pm)
Darren's picture
Darren says:

When can any of you libs explain to me how it is that the world has been both MUCH hotter and MUCH colder than now before mankind was here if we are causing it?????


(23 August 2006 - 4:35pm)
media girl's picture

...is thinking that this is a liberal vs. conservative issue. What are you afraid of?


(23 August 2006 - 7:23pm)
Schiller Thurkettle's picture
Schiller Thurkettle says:

Of course it's a liberal vs. conservative issue. If it were a scientific issue, the scientists would be in charge of working things out. But it's actually some thing else. Bush is evil. Bush is from Texas. Oil is from Texas. Oil comes from big corporations. Big corporations are evil. Therefore oil is evil every way you look at it. To strike back at Bush and corporations, say that CO2 from oil is killing the planet.

If the liberals were semi-literate and consistent about CO2, they would demand that we snuff out the largest emitter of CO2 on the planet--the Amazon rain forest. But no, they're not concerned enough about CO2 to go after the biggest problem. They're actually just against Bush and corporations.

Let's be real, though. The most influential "greenhouse gas" is water vapor. Clouds. But nobody wants to demand cloud control, because that doesn't strike a blow against Bush and the corporations.


(29 August 2006 - 9:58am)
media girl's picture

When you look at what is recently causing changes, then you look at what's changed recently.

Combustion is on the rise. The Amazon rain forest is shrinking. Do you truly believe that plants cause global warming?

There's also a lot of trapped methane within the ice sheets of Greenland and northern Asia. As that ice melts, that gas is released. We have a cascading effect.

Now if you think cutting down the Amazon rain forest would address global warming, I'd like to hear it. I'd like to see it presented at the scientific talks or in the scientific literature.

Really, this is a reality-based blog, Thurky. There are plenty of science fiction sites to paste your alternate universes.

You can consider that a warning.


(29 August 2006 - 11:36am)
your name here's picture
your name here says:

You are amazingly closed-minded on this subject, and unnessesarily hostile.
Demonizing or ridiculing those that doubt the extent and cause of climate change has a chilling effect on free speech that makes open, rational debate almost impossible.
When scientific data are presented as "facts," disagreement and inquiry are discouraged. But honest scientific investigation requires the assumption of falsifiability whereby no issue or conclusion is considered settled or beyond continuous investigation and experimentation.
Instead of attacking researchers that seek to challenge the status quo view on global warming, journalists should investigate the motives of the global-warming alarmists. Consider scientists that follow the "scientific consensus" line. They have a strong incentive to do so to gain access to billions of dollars of public funds for studies into global warming. Meanwhile, politicians use "fear" to soften up citizens so that they willingly give up more hard-earned income to pay carbon taxes.
Try watching Global Warming Swindle at MySpace tv. Yes, I believe global warming is real, but I'm not foolish enough to believe all this hype about human co2 admissions and the doomsday for all us sinners who don't repent and "go green" with a cult-like passion. Believe what you believe, but at least allow others the respect to consider that their beliefs might be just as valid as yours.


(15 March 2008 - 11:24pm)

store

Not Your Emininent Domain!

Buy stuff here.

» On global warming, who's paying to shoot the messenger?