Debunkers for Hire

Ouch.

Another inconvenient truth?

I don't think it's a big deal at all. it's really nothing more than positive PR by industry. they all do it to try and highlight "good things" about themselves and their industry to offset the negative(sometimes the truth). business is a game and this is one of the tools in the game. is it all science? hell no, much is nothing more than spin, but again, all industry do something to offset the negative.

The moneys involved look pretty small compared to what the anti science crowds toss around while misinforming the population.

Could you be more specific... who is the 'anti science crowds' you're referring to, and could you cite a source about the money involved.

Let's get them out in the open.

Yet internal financial documents (read them here) provided to Mother Jones show that ACSH depends heavily on funding from corporations that have a financial stake in the scientific debates it aims to shape.

Yeh I guess they are a pretty small outfit, with a couple million in the portfolio. Fredski is right of course, there's a ton of this going on all the time within industry, the little PR firm is just that.

Just asl Al Gore how much he made on his BS farseumentary.

I think his paycheck alone for that alone was more than these guys take in over several years given his falsifying data and making a big green stink has raked him in between $150 - $200 million on the conservative estimates. Heck he pulls done $100K plus expenses for making a speech even if a lot of his data and numbers are wrong in it.

Whereas given the data shown for 2012 for the ACSH looks like they got about $400K in grants to work on that year.

Politicians on the talk circuit all make big money.

But I fail to see where the money is in the 'big green stink'. Honestly. Is money the motive behind this? I don't think so. If you have documentation to support the claim, pony up, stop howling without showing the money shot.

I will take it you are just trolling me since anyone with basic internet skills can find this stuff.

If you want answers I suspect one of the big dogs around here will post you a few links and references to the dozens of debate threads that have went on here over GW and climate change and what is the real science and what is pure political and money based BS.

Oh pleeze call in your big doggies, if they have the paper to support their claims.

I've seen and been party to plenty of these threads you refer to - I've never seen one single piece of documentation that there's money in the so called "big green stink". Just a bunch of howlers whining with no basis in fact, afaik.

"Money based BS". humph. Show me the money. Your big doggies have no authority unless they can document the facts they claim. If it's documented then I will concede. But don't tell me that because some anonymous poster says so it's a fact. BS indeed.

There is some fanaticism on the green side, I don't deny that at all. There's some bias there to take into consideration, but don't tell me the money is on that side! It's absurd. You may as well accuse homeless bums of believing stuff "for the money". If there's a secret money pit behind environmental science, I fail to see it. So pony up, chum. Support your claims with more than some anonymous quote!!

Post 14 = WOOF!

If you keep squealing like an inured rabbit asking the odds are the wolves will show up too.

I say go for it! At least it will be educational for someone!

BTW, What does this mean?

"So pony up, chum. Support your claims with more than some anonymous quote!!"

I never quoted anything anywhere.

And we know that all your claims are just the wild suppositions of a backwoods tire burner.

Hey I burn other things too!

Back when these exchanges were being talked about, it sounded like a massive scam from the get go...

So I decided to go looking into how they would reduce CO2 output.

They don't. They are a creative way to skim, (up to), trillions of dollars out of the energy and manufacturing sectors. Which means it would be us, the end users, that would be paying the tab, and lots of money going to the traders and investors that run the exchanges... The people that produce nothing, and do their work with mouse clicks.

It's not over. A lot of very powerful people are still pushing for them to be implemented, including the president.

http://carbontradexchange.com/about/about-us

http://quidsapio.wordpress.com/2012/06/06/how-goldman-sachs-invented-cap-and-trade/

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jeremywarner/100003851/

Look, anyone can throw out words like 'leaked documents' and 'fraud' and 'conflict of interest', etc., and make it sound like some organization is a bunch of scumbags providing pre-paid research results. Note how they use scare quotes "..." to imply that "junk science" might be something other than, well, junk science.

The same sort of thing could no doubt be done for an organization like the Natural Resources Defense Council -- and I seem to recall it has happened to them, when it was leaked (or rumored) that the Saudi's were funding them to attack fracking and the Keystone Pipeline.

One of the corporations listed as contributing to the ACS was Coca Cola. Well, Coca Cola contributes to A LOT of organizations across the political and non-political spectrum. As do most of the other companies whitewashed here.

http://www.coca-colacompany.com/sustainabilityreport/we/charitable-contributions.html#section-giving-through-the-cocacola-foundation-and-through-the-cocacola-company

This Mother Jones article is a guilt-by-association attack, and suffers from the logical error referred to as 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc'. (After this, therefore because of this).
Let's not forget to ask the question: Who is behind Mother Jones?

The days of independent, unbiased news, politics, finance, law, banking and just about anything else are gone.

There's no more honesty, morals or ethics left anywhere in this country, for sure, and the rest of the world is learning quickly to, as a friend once said, "Dick Cheney, before he dicks you."

Anybody who has money can purchase public opinion and now that the supreme court has allowed mega corporations to purchase politicians as well we're all dicked.

Politicians are now campaigning 365 days a year, EVERY YEAR, and to the Devil with the voters. Where do they get the money? Not from the voters.

I remember when Tip Oneal and other political movers and shakers would consume a quart of scotch in his office most nights and make the government work.

Now Ted Scruz and the other radical politcoterrorists are trying to shut down the country and advocate anarchy.

Usbport,

I feel sorry for people who are on the internet and don't have the intellectual wherewithall to judge whether a source is legitimate or not. Sure we all get fooled some time. No, I don't know "who's behind Mother Jones". AFAIK they are journalists who support their stories with documentation. As in the present case.

You say "anyone can throw out words like 'leaked documents' and 'fraud'... The documents in question are attached, see Lyn's direct link to the page and read it yourself. As for 'fraud', a journalist cannot report that a person served jail time for fraud if it is untrue. Libel suits would be inevitable.

I'm not familiar with the story you mentioned about Saudi funding. I would expect the Saudis to be funding some studies on bats, not fracking (oh wait, the penny drops....).

Hope Coca Cola is paying you for the endorsement.

Combating the shysters is best answered by government, in my opinion. Government is self-regulating, true, and therefore subject to human weaknesses. But the science apparati of the Executive Branch are EXPECTED to protect us from financial agendas. In general, they do a decent job, but there's always room for improvement.

The NIH, NSF, DARPA, Army Corps are all supposed to be objective. Oversight is called for and occasionally uncovers misdeeds. But in general, I'm thankful they're there.