How ExxonMobil Funded Global Warming Skeptics

Erik Moeller writes "According to a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, oil company ExxonMobil 'has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.' The report compares the tactics employed by the oil giant to those used by the tobacco industry in previous decades, and identifies key individuals who have worked on both campaigns. Would a 'global warming controversy' exist without the millions of dollars spent by fossil fuel companies to discredit scientific conclusions?"

Re:No there would not be a controversy

[SengirV]

To deny that the scientific community discourages dissent, especially involving sacred cow topics is being very naive.

Re:Clueless (or humorless) mods strike again

[Chris Burke]

Ah yes, the Everyone Has Some Degree of Bias Therefore All Biases Are Equal gambit. It's a close relative of the We Must Do Something And This is Something So We Must Do It gambit, in that it relies on believing that there are no quantitative differences between things. I wish my grocery clerk worked that way so I could give them "an amount of money" to pay for the groceries which cost "an amount of money".

Of course there would still be controversy and debate about global warming without the oil companies' efforts. It's nature, however, would be quite different. Sort of like how the tobacco companies kept the controversy centered around "cigarettes are/are not addictive and are/are not cancer causing" when otherwise it would have been "what are the specific risks of cigarettes and how best to deal with addiction".