“Global warming is made up by the government. They’re just trying to suck more money out of us when we’re already in a recession!”
“Who is the one making all the money off of global warming? Al Gore!”
“I don’t believe in global warming because the earth goes through natural warming cycles.”
I become more and more apalled as I read online forum comments and articles touting that global warming is an elaborate hoax and will come to be nothing more than a gigantic Y2K fiasco.
What is most disturbing is those organizations and “scientists” who are getting paid to trump these lies to the public.
Case in point is the Heartland Institute.
This organization says its mission is “to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems.” Furthermore, the institute claims to be a non-partisan, non-profit organization that is unaffiliated with any businesses.
However, the institute has been documented as receiving $561,500 in funding from ExxonMobil from 1998-2005. The company also receives funding from Phillip Morris, the tobacco company. In addition, the Board of Directors for the Heartland Institute includes Thomas Walton, Director, Economic Policy Analysis, General Motors Coorporation.
Needless to say, the Heartland Institute denies that second-hand smoke is dangerous and says that global warming is an unproven farce. It even recently held a conference with the purpose of convincing people that global warming is a myth and is not a crisis.
The Heartland Institute’s research on global warming is laughable. The institute states that global warming is not a crisis, yet one of the organization’s very own researchers found the following:
- Eighty-two percent of climate scientists agreed with the statement, “We can say for certain that global warming is a process already underway.”
- About 56 percent agreed when asked, “Do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic (man-made) causes?”About 14 percent were unsure.
First, this sample was non-scientific; it was placed on the Web site for the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. Furthermore, I would argue that the true percentage of scientists who believe that global warming is due to anthropegenic causes is actually much higher. Most scientific organizations, including the American Geophysical Union, the American Astronomical Society, American Physical Society, the Federation of American Scientists, Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, and the European Geosciences Union, have released statements that conclude that global warming is happening, and it is due to man-made technologies. Many of these organizations have also concluded that swift action must be taken.
However, let’s say that the Heartland Institute’s research is correct. Is it not enough that nearly 60 percent of scientists surveyed by the institute think that global warming is caused by man-made processes, with only slightly more than a quarter of scientists saying that it isn’t?
Let’s say there is a 60-percent chance that you will get mugged if you walk outside alone at night without any protection (pepper spray, for example). Would you continue to walk alone at night sans protection because there is still a 40-percent chance that you will not get mugged?
It is crucial that people understand that even IF global warming is not caused by humans we need protect our planet and our future. Furthermore, we have the responsibility to be stewards to the earth regardless of our beliefs about global warming. How dare we pollute and rob the land that gives us so much? We ought take care of our environment and invest in clean energies from a pure moral standpoint.
The Heartland Institute was a member organization of the Cooler Heads Coalition which questioned the impact of global warming and claimed that climate control policies hurt consumers. It seems that this is already a popular farse by global warming skeptics, although the rise of green technologies in markets across the world has actually improved economic viability in many countries.
This type of stereotypical “global warming policy hurts the economy” view could have detrimental effects in the long run. What if global warming meets all of our worst predictions? Its effects will cost us an invaluable amount of money, resources and human lives. However, if we engage in responsible practices to mitigate the possible effects of global warming, and it turns out that it really was a hoax, we STILL benefit from a cleaner, more livable and sustainable environment. So either way, we win. Unless we follow the advice of organizations such as the Heartland Institute, who thinks we should not do anything to mitigate global warming.
peaceful earth 
I saw your blog article on global warming and wanted to tell you that I believe it is well written and that you have made several good points. In your blog you state, “if we engage in responsible practices to mitigate the possible effects of global warming, and it turns out that it really was a hoax, we STILL benefit from a cleaner, more livable and sustainable environment. So either way, we win.” This is a good point but isn’t it just an assumption? Can you provide some facts to support your argument? I am not saying that you are wrong, I am only suggesting that your argument would be stronger if you could back up this assertion with some empirical data and perhaps some kind of a cost-benefit analysis. Otherwise, I think your article is great. Thanks.
and if we rely less heavily on questionable regimes to provide us with the energy we consume, we become safer at the same time.
You don’t think scientists who depend on global warming alarm for research money also profit from it?
I don’t get it. Somehow the United States Dollars deniers are paid for their research are somehow different than the United States Dollars the warmist researchers get.
Thanks for your input Mick. I have read countless scientific articles on global warming. What I have found is that the global warming “skeptic” research is generally funded by big corporations that have a stake in keeping the status quo. However, a majority of the articles advocating the belief that global warming is real and is due to anthropogenic causes are written by people who have less of a monetary stake in the debate (ie university professors and scientists). I doubt the “dollars” put into global warming researcher’s pockets adds up to much, as most of the people that could fund them are grassroots organizations that can barely even afford to pay their employees. Just my observations.
Why don’t you advocate for nonpartisan blind funding? Researchers know who they work for. When an organization funds research it has a particular outcome in mind. Researchers know that their continued funding depends on delivering the desired results. Environmental organization studies are just as biased and suspect as industry studies.
Good point. I still believe in the integrity of an environmental non-profit more than I do the integrity of an oil company, but blind funding would be spectacular.
An environmental nonprofit group has higher integrity than an oil company. I cannot disagree with that point; however, I realize that is just my own biased opinion. I know several people who insist that environmental organizations have no integrity and their sole purpose is to gain political power by exploiting the good intentions of ignorant people. I believe that blind funding would alleviate much of the argument since both sides in this debate claim the other is manipulating the research. Do you have any ideas on how to establish a nonpartisan blind funding mechanism to conduct research and determine appropriate policy?