Tweet
This report should come as no surprise to anybody:
BP and several other big European companies are funding the midterm election campaigns of Tea Party favourites who deny the existence of global warming or oppose Barack Obama’s energy agenda, the Guardian has learned.
An analysis of campaign finance by Climate Action Network Europe (Cane) found nearly 80% of campaign donations from a number of major European firms were directed towards senators who blocked action on climate change. These included incumbents who have been embraced by the Tea Party such as Jim DeMint, a Republican from South Carolina, and the notorious climate change denier James Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma.
What’s on your mind tonight?
22 Comments
Citizen BP, presente.
I think I am going to claim personhood corporate! Seriously, I don’t see why us regular persons can’t have the same corporate subsidies and tax breaks as the newly formed coporate persons.
We have got to find a way to stop this corporate theif of democracy.
“Thanks” Supreme Kangaroo Court. You really f#&@ed us there.
Thanks for writing this post, Jim. We need to talk about this every day because something has to be done and soon. The future for our children and grandchildren looks scary if we don’t understand what is happening. I keep remembering that picture I saw on tv of the methane gas bubbling under the ice cap. That’s visible death.
Hmmm…incorporate yourself…good idea..think of all the loopholes.
Impeach Thomas for perjury during his testimony, Roberts for the corporate citizen debacle and promising he would not be activist and legislate from the bench, and as someone at DK said, for hearing the corporation case in the first place, and Scalia for duck hunting with Bruce the Shooter.
That’s a great idea! That would certainly give them some incentive to revisit that vulgar act of judicial activism. :)
I would like to see U.S. Supreme Court justices term-limited to something like 18 years. The idea that people can serve for 30 years or more is a little ridiculous.
If there weren’t people like Scalia and Thomas still hanging around, the people of TODAY could be choosing justices who reflect modern values. Then, a person of Chief Justice Roberts’ temperament would be relegated to the minority. No need for impeachment.
“Climate Change Denying Candidates”, eh? Are we supposed to believe that there really are candidates who tell us that climate doesn’t change?
I think what you should be concerned about is whether or not there are anti-CATASTROPHIC AGW Candidates. While it’d be extremely worthwhile to note oil company funding of such candidates if their position was counter-factual, it’s of decidedly less concern (at least to me), if such a belief is not counter-factual. Here are some qualified scientists who are anti-CATASTROPHIC AGW:
Speaking of climate change, have you heard about the latest scandals in the climate science world? Those would be kiwigate and Satellitegate ?
Can we expect diaries from you on these subjects?
I’m also curious about funding flows to US candidates from Goldman Sachs. They’re looking to make quite a bundle from Cap and Trade, and who better to deliver that, than the Democrats? So, I’d expect that Goldman Sachs would still be putting more of their campaign cash into Democrats than Republicans, though, of course, they’d be stupid not to cover their bets by investing heavily in both parties.
This is a link for Goldman Sachs and Cap and Trade, by Taibbi.
BUBBLE #6 Global Warming (section)
Can i expect one from you? I believe not, for those like yourself, hate to stick around and actively contribute what they try to start, don’t they, Troll?
(sigh)
A number of these Global Warming Deniers don’t believe in evolution either.
And regarding your statement that: “climate skeptics appear to be expanding rather than shrinking” this fact only shows that these people are also in denial about the need for good diet and exercise.
BP is British Petroleum why are they giving out cash in an American election? I thought we fought a revolution about that.
BP and the big oil companies know that when islands start flooding and refugees start swimming to America that they will get the blame and the cost of helping the refugees.
We should run commercials in red states saying that any state that elects a climate change denier has just volunteered his state to accept climate change refugees.
We tell the red states most of you don’t pay your fair share of taxes so all your good for is taking in refugees or nuclear bomb testing its your choice.
“A number of these Global Warming Deniers don’t believe in evolution either. ”
Surely, you’re not referring to the scientists I quoted, are you? I got this list from Final word on Global Warming -650 Top Scientists Dissent On AWG :
, BTW. I assume, instead, that you are referring to some Republicans. Well, gee whiz, it’s too bad that them embracing one myth is used by their critics to justify embracing their own myth. But people who are overly ideological, or have an agenda with a concomittant lack of ethics, aren’t likely to admit to that, now, are they?
“And regarding your statement that: “climate skeptics appear to be expanding rather than shrinking” this fact only shows that these people are also in denial about the need for good diet and exercise.”
Funny, but I think you’ve been brain-washed (i.e., thoroughly propagandized).
From the above reference:
There’s more in this vein (i.e., 2008 being a bellweather year) at the link.
AGW and catastrophic AGW are not “settled”. Even the Royal Society is now admitting as much.
Pssst… overthrow the two-party system…
I can’t speak for you, but my children and grandchildren will be OK. My upper-middle class American family has the resources to adapt to a changing climate. It’s the poor people of the world who will suffer and die.
Nations and national boundaries mean less and less, corporations and brand loyalties mean more and more. We are not really Americans anymore. We are customers of BP, Wal-Mart, Coca-Cola, and McDonald’s.
Yes, I am referring to the scientists on your list. One example would be Roy Spencer.
If you are not aware of the facts, perhaps you need to look at who is actually on that list of yours a bit more closely. ;-)
Here is a good place to start, a site where your dude Roy Spencer reveals his stance on the matter.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/roy-spencer-on-intelligent-design/
And, by the way, if you think that 650 guys is impressive, I give you the American Geophysical Union, which includes 50,000 earth, ocean and atmospheric scientists. Here is their statement on the subject of Global Warming. It might do you some good to start listening to some real scientists (you know, ones who are not Creationists)
http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/positions/climate_change2008.shtml
to warp9 (I can’t seem to be able to reply, directly)
Good catch, but are you suggesting that most of the 650 scientists are creationists?
Also, please inform us as to whether or not you consider the scientists of the Royal Society to be “real scientists”, or not. On lefty blogs, I’ve run into statements like yours that imply a clear dichotomy, more than once. I.e., if you’re a real scientist, you must believe A or NOT A. Such a mindset, applied to scientists and their controversies in many fields, would be completely inappropriate. Why anybody should expect that it pertain to climate science is beyond me. My guess is that you are ignorant of scientific history and the sociology of scientists. Reading The Trouble of Physics and Not Even Wrong will help set you on the right path.
If don’t believe that “real scientists” can be found on both sides of the debate, just say so. But be forewarned, I will then have as much trouble taking you seriously as an evolution denier who is, nevertheless, a working scientist.
Yeah, I can’t reply to the correct post either. I guess that this nested reply thing will only let us go so far. And I’m hoping that the message I chose to reply to give the result I intend.
Anyway, to answer your question: am I suggesting all the scientists on Inhofe’s list are Creationists?
Answer:
No, I never meant to imply that. I’m very sure that there are all kinds of other nut-balls on that list, along with a rather large number of corporate shills.
There are also a number of people whose scientific expertise is not really in the area that relates to the global climate, and there may even be some people who actually believe that human activity is altering the temperature, but who have been misrepresented by Inhofe, as is discussed at the following 2 sites. . . .
http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/12/scientist-our-conclusions-were-misinterpreted-by-inhofe-co2-but-not-the-sun-is-significantly-correlated-with-temperature-since-1850/
http://jules-klimaat.blogspot.com/2008/12/inhofes-650-list-misrepresents-belgian.html
To warp9:
Do you also assume that the 40 Royal Society members who recently forced the Royal Society to walk back the notion of climate science being settled, are also nutjobs?
You don’t inspire any sort of confidence in me that you can or will try to be objective.
You’ve also said nothing about the fudged data and analysis, which now extends well beyond climategate. Even without a large contingent of dissident scientists, how can anybody be sanguine about the claims of mainstream climate scientists, given climategate, kiwigate, and satellitegate??
From ClimateRealists.com, it appears that there are other -gates, as well.
(emphasis mine)
So all these -gates are supporting the so-called “consensus”, before they’re exposed; meanwhile I’ve now heard/read multiple sources that say that intimidation of scientists who don’t toe that line has occurred.
Can’t say I’m impressed…
I’m pretty new here. . . so the following observation may be inaccurate.
I get the impression that these specific blog areas (I guess that they are called “diaries”) sort of get buried by other diaries as time goes on.
At this point, I’m not sure that anybody is interested in this particular discussion but you and I.
If you’d like to do so, you can start some of your own diaries on the topic, and we can continue the conversation there.
Otherwise, let us agree to disagree.