Sentences with phrase «about fossil fuel interests»

about Fossil Fuel Interests «Coached» Conservatives to Reject Climate Science in US and Australia, Study Finds

It's almost certainly about fossil fuel interests attempting to protect their industry.

Not exact matches

While the money is modest compared with that donated by fossil fuel interests, the support provides GOP candidates with added credibility on clean energy, an issue polling shows swing voters care about.

It is far more interested in speaking about fossil fuels than the importance of traditional marriage and the procreation of children.

In the English Department where I teach, at a mid-sized Midwestern university, we have just voted virtually unanimously (there are about 40 of us in the department — there was one abstention) for our university endowment to divest from fossil fuel interests.

The general point made when talking about people like Singer and so on is that they recieved major funding from fossil fuel interests — but isn't that also true of the New York Times, and doesn't it raise similar questions about the quality of their coverage?

It seems to me that the most likely explanation for the NYT «correction» was that the paper's editors were worried about creating a legal basis for global - warming lawsuits against fossil fuel interests, as «prior knowledge of harm caused» played a central role in the tobacco lawsuits — and the head of the American Petroleum Institute PR push is Edelman, previously of «second - hand tobacco smoke is not a problem» fame.

Even for those of you who are interested in seeing a reduction in our dependence on fossil fuels — and I know how passionate young people are about issues like climate change — the fact of the matter is, is that for quite some time, America is going to be still dependent on oil in making its economy work.

In the briefest of descriptions, Rado claimed the video presented biased information from scientists who were funded by fossil fuel interests, but it turned out he voiced a dislike of the video before viewing it, had a preconceived notion about the funding of skeptic scientists, and failed to disclose precisely who his complaint reviewer William Connolley was.

The grant to Columbia Journalism School was directed at «public interest research into what the fossil fuel industry understood about the science of climate change and how they acted given that understanding both internally and regarding the public,» but it did not target Exxon Mobil specifically, Wasserman said.»

In February, public documents showed that Soon received hundreds of thousands of dollars from fossil fuel interests to publish «deliverables» in the form of articles about the solar - warming theory in scientific journals.

These are organizations, many representing fossil fuel interests, that work to sow doubt about climate change science and to delay or prevent policy solutions.

Attacks on the credibility of climate science are perpetuated by vested interests, including the fossil fuel industry, which has pumped millions of dollars into creating uncertainty about our understanding of climate change.

It's quite okay to buy those carbon - intensive fuels, which speaks volumes about what's the real agenda here: protecting the interests of the fossil fuel industry, even though producing synthetic fuels using Nazi - era technology actually produces more carbon dioxide than burning petroleum itself.

So let's be clear about the facts: Galileo had the courage to speak truth to the powerful interests of his day in the Roman Catholic Church, just as two generations of scientists have tried to speak truth about climate change to executives and lobbyists in the fossil fuel industry.

To the scientific community, in violation of professional standards, he said nothing about having been paid to produce the «deliverables» by fossil - fuel interests, including the Southern Company (a utility holding company) and the Charles G. Koch Foundation.

There's an interesting passage in The Rational Optimist about the value of fossil fuels in preventing localised starvation, using the bread riots in Paris as an example.

Among those who have taken some interest in addressing climate change, there have over the last decade or so been discussions about whether a focus on curtailing the activities of the fossil fuel industries or a focus on reducing demand for fossil fuels is the right single or leading method to move society into a transition away from fossil energy.

The Madhouse Effect also pinpoints where these denialist talking points often originate, detailing many of the fossil fuel front groups whose representatives frequently mislead about climate change in major print and TV media without disclosing their glaring conflicts of interest.

But the fossil fuel industry is far from abandoning its own interest in British waters as the energy giant BP has announced that it is to invest about # 670m (US$ 1,040 m) to extend the life of its North Sea assets.

Instead he speaks of the current «war on fossil fuels» and about how the U.N.'s interest in climate is motivated by «power, autonomy and control.»

With fossil fuel prices and concern about climate change both climbing, there is now a resurgence of interest.

Simply improving messaging in accordance with recommendations of psychologists or following the recommendations of economists to create economic incentives to engage in less GHG producing behavior will not likely create strong citizen support for climate change policies unless citizens better understand that the narrative created by opponents of climate change policies about high levels of scientific uncertainty and unacceptable harm to the economy from the adoption of climate policies is not only false but has been manufactured by fossil fuel companies and other entities which have economic interests in continuing high levels of fossil fuel consumption.

Media pundits, partisan think tanks, and special interest groups funded by fossil fuel and related industries raise doubts about the truth of global warming.

* The video essentially suggests denial about catastrophic man - caused global warming is bankrolled and orchestrated by fossil fuel industry interests.

I had never worked with fossil fuel interests until I became incensed with the lies being spread about my country's oil production in the capitals of our allies around the world.

So, while just about the only group likely to make a case for the historical benefits of fossil fuels is the oil industry — who can not be trusted because they are the fossil fuel industry — the press and politicians are more than happy to swallow the GHF report despite the fact that much of the crucial data on which its 300,000 figure is based is provided by insurance giants Munich Re, when risk insurers have as much interest in generating fear of climate change as Exxon has in generating doubt.

And the larger question is, why do no others corroborate his accusation that skeptic scientists were paid to lie to the public by fossil fuel interests about the global warming issue?

The Global Climate Coalition — a lobbying group that represents fossil fuel, automotive and heavy industry interests — has also been very active in spreading misleading information about the climate crisis.

By raising questions about his «funding» from «fossil - fuel interests».

But opposition to doing something about anthropogenic global warming comes largely (although not entirely) from two different sources: fossil fuel interests and the ideology of libertarianism.

The mechanisms such interests use are many — influencing election outcomes by injecting huge sums of money into them (see the NYT editorial on the KOch Brothers and AB32, for example), installing fossil fuel employees in government bureaucracies (BP's ex-chief scientist is currently Head of Science at the DOE, one Steve Koonin, also of Caltech — welcome to the fossil fuel - academic complex), and distorting science to fit their agenda (witness the endless fraudulent claims about zero - emission combustion, despite the persistent absence of any stand - alone prototypes.)

Skeptics don't have to rely on vested fossil fuel interests to do research, nor do fossil fuel interests have to fund their research to learn about alternatives to the consensus position.

As I wrote, this is exactly where the fossil fuel interests want to keep climate scientists bottled up — in a never - ending pseudo-debate with pseudo-skeptics about pseudo-science.

They claimed that the problem has been that fossil fuel interests have massively outspent underdog environmental groups, funding skeptics to mislead the public and duping the media into giving too much credence to skeptical views about climate change.

In closing, the amendment lends support to the ongoing state Attorneys General investigations in both New York and California into what ExxonMobil and other fossil fuel interests knew, and when, about climate change risks and why the industry chose instead to attack the science to prolong its profits.

James Hansen, the director of the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies who first warned the world about the dangers of climate change in the 1980s, has joined other scientists in submitting statements to be considered by a judge at the Information Rights Tribunal on Friday... James Hansen told the Guardian: «Our children and grandchildren will judge those who have misled the public, allowing fossil fuel emissions to continue almost unfettered, as guilty of crimes against humanity and nature... If successful, the FOI request may, by exposing one link in a devious manipulation of public opinion, start a process that allows the public to be aware of what is happening, what is at stake, and where the public interest lies.»»