Sentences with phrase «fossil fuel industry money»

Some of the papers cited by the IPCC predate the Harvard Smithsonian Center involvement, but Soon's long history of taking fossil fuel industry money is well established.

My focus is on the accusation that skeptic climate scientists are paid fossil fuel industry money to lie about the issue to the public.

How a combination of fossil fuel industry money and free market fundamentalists support PR firms like CFACT and writers like David Wojick and we end up with lame strawman arguments and delay in a rational response to address climate change: http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org

Not exact matches

«Money from megadonors from multibillion dollar fossil fuel industry should be rejected by all Long Island elected officials,» said Diane Goins of Hempstead, chairwoman of the Long Island Chapter of New York Communities for Change, a nonprofit coalition of working families in low and moderate income communities.

Bernie Sanders» campaign thinks Clinton owes the Vermont senator an apology for accusing him of «lying» about how she accepts money from the fossil fuel industry.

«Unfortunately, our governments have become so dominated by money that both parties are heavily dependent on contributions from industry, including especially the fossil fuel industry.»

Environmental groups, climate activists, and some Democrats in Congress have long complained that federal agencies, and DOE in particular, have spent too much money supporting the fossil fuel industry, even as it racked up decades of impressive profits.

So, if Inhofe lets money dictate his policies, what does it mean that the top three contributors to his campaign are dirty energy companies (Koch industries being # 1), or that he has taken well over $ 1 million from the fossil fuel industry since 1999?

He has accepted more than $ 1.2 million in money from the fossil - fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers.

I think there would be a lot to be said for producing a complimentary package that for starters explains where money for science comes from and how many scientists work for fossil fuel and smokestack industries whereas a paid climatologist of any description is a rare bird indeed.

As far as I can tell, he has made a point of avoiding associations with the main body of scepticism, nor has he taken money from the fossil fuel industry or the Scaife crowd.

Mr. Romm and many environmental campaigners and energy entrepreneurs say that markets, laws, public campaigns and leadership can prompt the technological transformation, and that government research money has mainly been a distraction and a delaying device promoted by industries or political operatives wedded to fossil fuels.

When energy consumers, like Japan's gov» t, decide that it's better to spend a bit more money on limitless and safe ethanol, solar, wind, water, or geothermal power than on limited and dangerous fossil fuels, then the energy industry will change because it must.

It's important to note that there's also sometimes a kind of «false inequivalence» in the fight over climate science and policies — an implication that the lack of action on greenhouse gases is largely the result of the unfair advantage in money and influence held by industries dealing in, or dependent on, fossil fuels.

Yet while money may be flowing away from many fossil fuel investments, investing in solar projects has traditionally been somewhat cumbersome — requiring significant capital, legal expertise, and industry connections.

That will look like a number of things, first, continuing fights around the world to keep fossil fuel in the ground, and second, continuing to follow the money and expose the corporations and industries that stand in the way of progress.

This move will not only cut carbon emissions, it will keep money in the hands of American consumers and out of the pockets of the dirty fossil fuel industry.

Similarly, people in the fossil fuel industries are making a lot of money by digging up and burning fossil fuels.

Accusations of corrupt fossil fuel industry influence over skeptic climate scientists are irrelevant material — worthless — in the absence of any physical evidence (full context document scans, undercover video / audio transcripts, leaked emails, money - transfer receipts) proving such skeptics were paid and orchestrated to lie about the certainty of catastrophic man - caused global warming.

Of course there is big money in the fossil fuel industry and where there is big money there is often great dishonesty, consider the tobacco industry.

A news report coming out of the 2010 G20 Summit reported that «Every day governments give away an estimated two billion dollars of taxpayer money to the fossil - fuel industry.»

As ever, the fatal problem with enviro - activists» enslavement to the «reposition global warming as theory» phrase as proof that skeptics are paid illicit money to lie about certainty of global warming is that there is no evidence of it being a top - down fossil fuel industry directive of any kind.

Most people not involved in the fossil fuel industry will be glad that tax monies don't go to their coffers)

However, I want it to be clear that, although I - 732 is the closest proposed law to a simple honest carbon fee and dividend, a good example for other states and nations of a nearly revenue - neutral rising carbon fee, the national fee - and - dividend should be simpler, with 100 % of the money collected from the fossil fuel industry distributed uniformly to the public.

Recently the fossil fuel industry has decided to throw money to the opposition ($ 250,000 from American Fuels and Petrochemical Manufacturers).

But in a case study of the power of fossil fuel interests to shape government policy, the industry's money and alliances with conservative think tanks and advocacy groups transformed the committee's membership and supported the rise of Smith, son of an old oil and ranching family in South Texas.

«If other G20 governments are serious about standing up to Trump's climate denial and meeting their commitments under the Paris Agreement, they need to stop propping up the outdated fossil fuel industry with public money.»

Do follow their advice: research the signatories of this letter and follow their money trail, which leads straight to the fossil fuel industry.

Considering that at least 43 % of the letter's signatories have received money from the fossil fuel industry, being given large sums of money just for being climate «skeptics» and publishing error - riddled nonsense like this op - ed, the sheer nerve it must have taken to make this «follow the money» argument is astounding.

That's when fossil fuel industry lobbyists and executives started pouring more money into front groups and advocacy campaigns aimed at spreading doubt about climate science and blocking action to reduce emissions.

Follow - up from that suggested there's a lot of money coming from the fossil fuel industry - kind of obviously, really.

These guys get tons of money from the fossil fuel industry, and then they lead their party off the deep end.

The PR industry is a major component of the influence peddling industry that stretches across Washington and the world, and they are making large sums of money from energy companies and other important players that have businesses connected casino online to fossil fuels and energy policy,

I know your tongue is planted firmly in cheek, but I did some research on the matter, and found that the fossil fuel industry, automobile industry, and wal - mart - like fossil - fuel - based mega-scale consumer goods distribution industry have many thousands of times more money at stake (~ $ 10 trillion annually) on the outcome of this debate than do the scientists in question.

I found that the amount of money available in the fossil fuel - related industries (coal, oil, and natural gas production, transportation, and immediate consumption) exceeded the money available for academic and government - funded climate research by approximately 2,500 times.

I did a study on the money involved in climate science vs. the money involved in fossil fuel related industries and found that any money - motivated scientist was better off working for industry than laboring away as a government or academic scientist.

They promote spending $ 22 billion just in federal money during FY - 2014 on climate change studies; costly solar projects of every description; wind turbines that blight scenic vistas and slaughter millions of birds and bats annually, while wind energy developers are exempted from endangered species and other environmental laws that apply to all other industries; and ethanol programs that require millions of acres of farmland and vast quantities of water, fertilizer, pesticides and fossil fuel energy to produce a gasoline additive that reduces mileage, harms engines, drives up food prices... and increases CO2 emissions.

The New York Times writes «He has accepted more than $ 1.2 million in money from the fossil - fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers.»

Carbon taxes in Denmark are used to push industry away from fossil fuels while pulling companies toward renewables, and the money is invested to make it easy - and affordable - for industry to switch to low - carbon technologies.

So, if none of those deliver (pardon the pun) evidence clearly showing how skeptic climate scientists agreed to accept illicit money in exchange for spreading lies that meet the approval of fossil fuel industry executives, what do we have left?

``... The point was not that money from the fossil fuel industry had corrupted the findings of the scientists...

The problem is when fossil fuel industries funnel money to the policymakers themselves and the thinktanks that provide them with information, which is for the purpose of favoring those industries when policies are made or blocked, especially if built on the dubious scientific standards of their thinktanks.

The fossil fuel industry donates money to everything, including research on renewable energy and ecological research — and of course The Smithsonian.

So, if Inhofe lets money dictate his policies, what does it mean that the top three contributors to his campaign are dirty energy companies (Koch industries being # 1), or that he has taken well over $ 1 million from the fossil fuel industry since 1999?

Because I accept the science and from what I can tell attempts to discredit the science are funded by fossil fuel industries funnelling money to think tanks, opinion bloggers and facebook pages in an effort to influence the political process.

«attempts to discredit the science are funded by fossil fuel industries funnelling money to think tanks, opinion bloggers and facebook pages in an effort to influence the political process»

In order to save your children from the evil fossil fuel industries who pay copious amounts of money to this blog to spread misinformation, you spend hours of your own time astroturfing this blog with post after post demanding peer reviewed answers to all your questions whilst ignoring anything directing you to what you think is an opinion blog (unless it's «proof» of fossil fuel funding, then blogs are apparently OK) just to convince us that man emits CO2 and the world has warmed since industrialisation??

Front page stories at The New York Times and The Washington Post have also highlighted Steyer's past investments in the fossil fuel industry and the profits accrued by the hedge fund he used to lead, noting the apparent inconsistency with his political advocacy.16, 17 Bill McKibben who helped inspire Steyer's opposition to the Keystone pipeline and who consults with the billionaire activist, offers an opposing perspective: «After years of watching rich people manipulate and wreck our political system for selfish personal interests, it's great to watch a rich person use his money and his talents in the public interest.»

«After 4 years of students petitioning, awareness raising, protesting and negotiations, Sussex has finally pulled it's money out of the fossil fuel industry!

While the institute rejects claims it is a front group, one of its senior fellows, coal industry veteran Fred Palmer, told DeSmog in February 2017 that he was «reaching out to the fossil fuel community right now and raising money for Heartland.»