Greenpeace Blasts Exercise of Free Speech
Today, Greenpeace attacked ExxonMobil for exercising its free speech rights. In particular, it criticized Exxon-Mobil for spending $2 million funding about 40 groups it calls "global warming skeptics." For perspective (missing from this article), pro-anthropomorphic global warming research receives over $2 billion in the US alone (and that is just government money, it does not include private money), making Exxon's funding less than 0.1% of that provided to groups with opposing viewpoints.
How settled can the science be if the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) believers feel horribly threatened by a group they outspend more than 1000:1? This is like Hillary Clinton complaining that Mike Gravel is being allowed to spend too much money. The AGW folks have consistently lost debates where they went head to head against credible skeptics. If you don't want to argue the issues, you resort to ad hominem attacks.
By the way, shame on Exxon-Mobil for getting all defensive about their spending. They should have said "sure we are skeptics, and we think there are a lot of good reasons to be skeptics. In fact, we'd love to have a televised debate with Greenpeace on AGW."
Update: In a related announcement, scientists declared the science of Phlogiston settled.
Bob Smith:
I believe you meant *pro-anthropogenic* global warming. Yes, Exxon should be butt-kicking. Wierdly, just about all public companies are scared to confront liberal moonbattery. Probably because they (the moonbats) control the media that would be reporting the confrontation.
May 18, 2007, 6:40 pmMesa EconoGuy:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/05/18/ad-hominem-absurdum
May 18, 2007, 8:17 pmCathy:
This article should be entitled "Coyote Blog Blasts Greenpeace Exercise of Free Speech." It's a sad attempt to discredit Greenpeace by accusing the organization of doing something it didn't do. Greenpeace criticized Exxon's funding choices, NOT what Exxon said. Ironically, Coyote Blog is criticizing and misrepresenting what Greenpeace said. A bit hypocritical, no?
May 19, 2007, 12:55 amJody:
Cathy: I bet you support McCain-Feingold...
The rest of us equate limiting private money used to promote speech with limiting the speech itself.
May 19, 2007, 4:30 amJody:
Or to put it in a different context, how is limiting the money which Exxon can spend to research an issue and publish the results not abridging the freedom of the press?
If you somehow think that's ok, how is it differnt from politicians telling newspapers that it is illegal (or they can't) pay reporters to do research on the latest political scandal? Or perhaps research on some specific industry?
May 19, 2007, 5:03 amAnon:
Coyote, do you have a cite for the $2 billion dollars of government spending for pro-AGW research?
May 19, 2007, 11:11 amJason:
You are either part of the problem or the solution.
Regardless if Exxon-Mobil has the right to spend money on slowing down the global fight to help save the world, it is only hurtful to all of us.
We should all be part of the solution and help save our world for our children's future. Be Examples, Be Leaders.
My company currently has a 2007 Toyota Prius which is a hybrid. It currently averages 46 MPG. I would encourage others to take take similar action in changing the world.
Jason M. Shipley
May 19, 2007, 11:46 pmhttp://www.tenships.com
Jody:
it is only hurtful to all of us.
I'm also of the opinion that global warming of a few C would be a good thing, particularly if it is as described by the GW crowd - much warmer nights and winters, somewhat warmer days and summers with much of the rise in the upper latitudes.
Warmer is typically better for all forms of life. Think tropics.
That being said
a) I am quite dubious that the current climate change is being primarily driven by humans,
b) but think that the private adoption of CFLs, improved solar efficiency, increased deployment of nuclear plants, more exotic areas of research (e.g., solar satellites in space or this) and someday hybrids (right now they're less energy efficient net than the equivalent non-hybrid vehicle once you factor in the additional energy required to manufacture) will be a good thing as improved energy efficiency means we can apply the energy to new things and in general, energy + intelligence = productivity = improved standards of living.
c) I think 46 mpg is actually a pretty lousy advance if you think about it - Geo metros got up to 58 mpg in the 80s from a non-hybrid engine and were actually cheaper than most cars. They, however, didn't get the press and tax advantages.
d) The typical solutions proposed by the AGW crowd scare me to death - massive regulation of the energy markets, massive restrictions on travel (see England), mandatory adoption of technologies (see CA with CFL), tax advantages for continually not ready for prime time technologies (wind) and tax breaks for politically favored things which would actually be counter-productive (ethanol). It'll intrude into everyday life and really muck up the energy market which will muck up the advantages I noted in b) while dramatically lowering our standard of living.
May 20, 2007, 6:40 amJim Collins:
Uhhh. Somebody needs to tell Jason that he needs to take a look at what goes into the manufacturing of the batteries for Prius and what will happen when these batteries are depleated and need to be disposed of before he shoots his mouth off about changing the world. Wait..........I just did.
May 22, 2007, 5:57 am