# Big Oil are not Climate Change Denialists **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 3, 2014, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303 "2014-07-03T21:32:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/141 "2014-07-07T16:55:37Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > That they will profit is guaranteed since their business will survive for decades. The demand for oil last decades in a similar volume to that needed today. Zero reason to think they can’t produce and sell it at similar margins to today. I don’t think it’s possible to insult us any more than to think we don’t know what it means to be greedy. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/142 "2014-07-07T17:08:12Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > Well, for one, the absence of necessity means that tobacco companies were fighting for their survival while oil companies don’t need to. Their survival is already guaranteed. I think they rightly know that there is a strong need for petroleum products for at least the next 3-5 decades. They are in no danger of being eliminated as an industry and this would color their motivations. They are not in danger of being eliminated outright. However, every dollar spent on, say, a hybrid car as opposed to a gas guzzler, a solar panel or a nuclear plant instead of a good ol’ fuel burner or really any other not\_oil energy source is one buck that does not come their way. Why settle for anything less than ALL THE MONEYS ? Practical alternative energy sources also decrease the price of oil per barrel for relatively obvious reasons. Supply, demand, all that. So yeah, there absolutely is a vested interest for Big Oil to try and stem the tide. Denying that moves past candid territory and into “are you actually a paid-for astroturfing shill ? :dubious:” land. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/143 "2014-07-07T18:44:42Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I don’t think it’s possible to insult us any more than to think we don’t know what it means to be greedy. And when did I do that? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/144 "2014-07-07T18:47:31Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I don’t think it’s possible to insult us any more … Welcome to the Dope, n00b. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/145 "2014-07-07T18:57:07Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > And when did I do that? “Golly! What reason would they have ever have for wanting even more money then they already have?” :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/146 "2014-07-07T19:02:33Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > They are not in danger of being eliminated outright. However, every dollar spent on, say, a hybrid car as opposed to a gas guzzler, a solar panel or a nuclear plant instead of a good ol’ fuel burner or really any other not\_oil energy source is one buck that does not come their way. Why settle for anything less than ALL THE MONEYS ? > > Practical alternative energy sources also decrease the price of oil per barrel for relatively obvious reasons. Supply, demand, all that. > So yeah, there absolutely is a vested interest for Big Oil to try and stem the tide. Denying that moves past candid territory and into “are you actually a paid-for astroturfing shill ? :dubious:” land. I don’t think it’s that simple. You want to know what oil companies generally want? They want high stable prices that are not too high that they will make alternatives price competitive or hurt the economy. So, in today’s environment, they like oil being around $100. They would get nervous if oil prices were to spike to those summer 2008 levels. At certain prices, the economy starts to falter and/or demand destruction occurs. Oil companies certainly don’t want that. They want a strong growing economy. They also want to be able to meet demand for their product. There is very little spare capacity right now even though prices are high; that is not good. Could oil/gas production ramp up to replace coal, nuclear, hydroelectric, solar, wind, etc and keep up with projected demand? Absolutely not. Most sources project declining OECD oil consumption and growing non-OECD oil production with large growth in natural gas and alternatives to replace coal and meet forecasted consumption growth. Oil production could never do that on its own. I guess I don’t understand why any of that would be controversial. What’s “salesy” about it? ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/147 "2014-07-07T19:11:21Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > “Golly! What reason would they have ever have for wanting even more money then they already have?” :rolleyes: Well, I think they’d probably like to not face fines/sanctions or be nationalized or something like that. They operate primarily on land they don’t own, much of it government owned; they probably want to continue to do that. Most of the rest of it is owned by individuals; they probably want to be able to operate on that. Might help if they didn’t have bad reputations. I think there are a lot of reasons why they might not want to lie due to just unfettered greed. I think when you are facing extinction, like the tobacco companies were, you might be motivated a little differently. They have a little less to lose. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/148 "2014-07-07T19:14:29Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > Most of the funding for the climate denialism industry has [unknown origins.](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/) The OP has ruled out energy companies as the main source. So who’s giving the money, then? ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/149 "2014-07-07T19:29:54Z")
So, in reading through the Exxon link I provided in the OP, I’ve come across two additional pieces of information that might be of interest. First, Exxon provides a list of all companies that they donate to related to Climate Change. [It can be found here for 2013.](http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/Datasets/Worldwide%20Giving%20Report/2013/2013-global-contribution-environment.pdf) They also provide a Carbon Disclosure Project report for their investors shown [here.](http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/Reports/Other%20Reports/2013/cdp_investor_2013.pdf) This is a very long and detailed summary of specific actions that they take or plan to take to reduce emissions. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/150 "2014-07-07T19:35:02Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > The OP has ruled out energy companies as the main source. So who’s giving the money, then? I didn’t due that. I have not seen any evidence that Big Oil is the driving dollars behind it. In this thread I have stated that smaller historical contributions (of which there appears to be some evidence for) are not material. I’m not making any claims nor have I even really thought hard about contributions by other energy companies. I’ve seen some references about coal companies and companies such as Koch Industries that might indicate they are large sources behind much of the funding. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/151 "2014-07-07T19:51:08Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > So, in reading through the Exxon link I provided in the OP, I’ve come across two additional pieces of information that might be of interest. > > First, Exxon provides a list of all companies that they donate to related to Climate Change. [It can be found here for 2013.](http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/Datasets/Worldwide%20Giving%20Report/2013/2013-global-contribution-environment.pdf) And of course I noticed early what was coming up, indeed the next step, when failing to support denialism directly the next best thing as the tobacco and drinking alcohol companies showed, is to fund organizations that do good work; but the idea is to influence them when hard regulations come and then many of those organizations are expected to know who has the power of the purse and will be expected to help them when the harsh regulations come. > [@LonghornDave](#): > > They also provide a Carbon Disclosure Project report for their investors shown [here.](http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/Reports/Other%20Reports/2013/cdp_investor_2013.pdf) > > This is a very long and detailed summary of specific actions that they take or plan to take to reduce emissions. Once again, they saw the writing in the wall and they are, like in the steps of grief, in the bargaining step. [http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/24/3417692/exxon-climate-risk-disclosure/](http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/24/3417692/exxon-climate-risk-disclosure/) > [@](#): > > Why You Shouldn’t Applaud Exxon’s Decision To Disclose Climate Change Risks > > On Thursday, ExxonMobil made history by becoming the first oil and gas producer to tell investors about the risks it faces from climate change, and how it plans to be profitable in the face of those risks. Shareholders were very happy. Those who care about fighting climate change should not be. > > For investors, Exxon’s decision to publish a Carbon Asset Risk report makes a lot of sense. By knowing the risks that climate change will pose to Exxon’s business model; how it plans to deal with regulations to limit carbon emissions; and how climate risks affect capital expenditure plans, investors will be able to better decide whether to put money in to the company or take it away. > > From a business standpoint, this is arguably pretty good for Exxon, too. A Carbon Asset Risk report will force the company to be realistic about climate-related risks, and transparent about how it would survive them. It forces Exxon to accept climate change as fact (something most of the politicians whom Exxon funds refuse to do), and think hard about how upcoming climate regulations, climate-related storms, and shifted environmental surroundings might impact its profits. How would it survive if it couldn’t burn its fossil fuel reserves? How would it deal with a carbon tax? How much sea level rise would it take to harm offshore oil platforms? Could ocean acidification corrode piping? These are things that Exxon can now address, though what exactly it will address remains to be seen. > > But here is what Exxon’s agreement with shareholders does not do. It does not require Exxon to disclose its degree of responsibility for climate change through its skyrocketing carbon and methane emissions. It does not require Exxon to disclose how much its emissions have caused the need for the regulations it now plans on claiming as risks. It does not require Exxon to make a commitment to reduce its carbon footprint, much less acknowledge it at all. > > In fact, Exxon’s agreement — which it had rejected for the last four years — was made in exchange for dropping a more definitive one. According to the press release announcing the deal, Exxon only agreed to disclose climate change risks if the shareholder group pushing for the Carbon Asset Risk report agreed to drop a shareholder resolution. If approved, that resolution would have put Exxon on the books as acknowledging projections by both the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and The International Energy Agency (IEA) that state that “no more than one-third of proven reserves of fossil fuels can be consumed prior to 2050″ if the world is to avoid a global temperature rise above 2°C. > > The groups that pushed for the agreement — led by the non-profit As You Sow — make the point that a risk disclosure could play a role in reducing Exxon’s emissions. “Getting these companies to look at the risk means they may diversify and move into new and cleaner processes, move into new energy sources,” As You Sow president Danielle Fugere told Grist. > > Getting Exxon to disclose climate risks with the hope that it will eventually decide to diversify its energy portfolio is fine. But it is not a climate victory. A climate victory will come when Exxon — the second-biggest corporate carbon polluter in the world — actually makes a real commitment to diversify, and take responsibility for its own contribution to climate change. > > To its credit, Exxon does currently report its greenhouse gas emissions to the Carbon Disclosure Project and has touted an investment of $330 million in 2012 to reduce greenhouse gases and up energy efficiency. But even so, its contribution to climate change is on the rise. As of 2002, Exxon had alone produced 4.7 to 5.3 percent of the world’s total carbon dioxide emissions, according to a report compiled by Friends of The Earth International. Adding in methane, Exxon’s total emissions in 2002 were about 21.53 billion tonnes of carbon equivalent. Put another way, Exxon’s emissions up until 2002 had contributed between 3.4 and 3.7 percent to total attributable temperature change since 1882, and 2 percent of the sea level rise. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/152 "2014-07-07T19:53:54Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > They aren’t lying for survival. > They are lying for greed/profit. This. Exactly this. Every measure to mitigate emissions, every measure to replace fossil fuels with clean energy, every measure toward energy efficiency, is lost revenue for the oil companies. > [@LonghornDave](#): > > I don’t think the dollar amounts that Big Oil has donated come close to making a difference in public perception. I also think they are, today, more than countered by their public positions and statements. I think that when we’re talking about small dollar contributions from any big company then we are potentially dealing with pet causes of individual employees. > > I personally think that much of the anti-climate change opinion is society and politics is one of convenience. People don’t like being told they need to change their ways. A lot of people are anti-science in general. It’s astounding to me that anyone could claim that oil company lobbying doesn’t make a difference in view of what has already been stated – the nearly $1 billion that the cited Brulle paper was able to account for between 2003 and 2010 (of which Exxon was large enough to have its own entry on the chart, and that was just public money, not dark money), the $16 million that the UCC [was able to trace to ExxonMobil alone](http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/exxonmobil-report-smoke.html)\*, and most importantly, the resultant state of public perception about climate change. And no, it’s not a matter of “convenience” that so much of the public is in denial – as the above-cited paper points out (and other surveys corroborate) 43% of the US public believes that _ **scientists** _ are in doubt about AGW (45% correctly reported the near-unanimity of the science, and 12% didn’t know). And of course there’s anecdotally some segment of the public who believes that scientists are actually lying to us for some nefarious purpose. Where are people getting these impressions **about the science** if denialism funding is “too small to make a difference”? Some of the cites I provided explain just where they’re getting it. I think it’s fair to say that the more than $1 million in grants obtained by the crackpot denialist Willie Soon alone from coal and oil companies since 2001 to produce reprehensibly bad science [previously cited] is a typical source of this kind of disinformation. Soon and his fellow crackpot fraudster Sallie Baliunas produce the kind of pseudo-scientific nonsense that is then spun by denialist media – also well funded by the fossil fuel industry – into the notion that there is real “debate” in the science about the nature of AGW. If anyone could possibly believe that oil company lobbying doesn’t make a difference, here’s yet another example: The American Energy Alliance was formed in 1993 by the American Petroleum Institute and some other corporations as one of many front groups to lobby against environmental legislation. In 2009 the American Clean Energy and Security Act (Waxman-Markey Bill) was introduced into the House, basically an emissions trading and energy efficiency plan. The bill managed to pass the then Democratically controlled House but failed in the Senate, and what is interesting is the AEA’s active and reprehensibly deceptive role in this. The AEA (incidentally, headed at the time by disgraced former Republican majority leader Tom DeLay) began running ads warning that American taxpayers “would pay a heavy price” if Waxman-Markey was approved – specifically, that the bill would cost taxpayers “more than $3100 per year in new taxes”. They claimed they got that number from an MIT study. What they did not disclose in their flagrantly deceptive ads was that, though the study contains that number, the claim that the AEA was making was utterly false, and the study’s author, John Reilly, publicly repudiated the lie. In fact, the MIT study was supporting just the sort of emissions reductions and trading being proposed, similar to the European model, which has nothing whatsoever to do with costing the taxpayer anything. Moreover, a related study by the Union of Concerned Scientists showed that the bill’s provisions for energy efficiency would actually save consumers and businesses an estimated $465 billion per year. And if the government used money raised by the bill to finance tax breaks for consumers to improve their energy efficiency, the average household would save $900 a year, including $580 on fuel and $320 on electricity and heating. The bill failed despite a Democratic majority in both chambers at the time, and one can only imagine what its fate would have been had outright denialists like Inhofe and most currrent Republicans been the dominant votes. These people have political power and profess the views they do because it’s what most of their constituents believe. Let’s not kid ourselves about why they believe it. Joe Romm, the physicist who founded the Center for Energy and Climate Solutions and was cited by _Time_ magazine as one of its “Heroes for Environment” in 2009, has called the oil industry’s manipulation of public opinion “the greatest disinformation campaign in human history”. And what is the counter-evidence against that? A few general platitudes on oil company websites – platitudes so obvious, given the overwhelming body of scientific evidence for AGW, that they have no choice but to make them in order to retain even a shred of credibility? Gimme a break! So my bottom line is that I don’t care about these meaningless platitudes; what I care about is the oil companies’ long and sordid history of secretive manipulation of public opinion, their stunning hypocrisy and their persistent mendacity and flagrant dishonesty. – - I inadvertently and incorrectly referenced this amount as $29 million earlier, my apologies. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/153 "2014-07-07T20:24:53Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > It’s astounding to me that anyone could claim that oil company lobbying doesn’t make a difference in view of what has already been stated – the nearly $1 billion that the cited Brulle paper was able to account for between 2003 and 2010 (of which Exxon was large enough to have its own entry on the chart, and that was just public money, not dark money), the $16 million that the UCC [was able to trace to ExxonMobil alone](http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/exxonmobil-report-smoke.html)\*, and most importantly, the resultant state of public perception about climate change. Correct me if I’m wrong, but from my reading, if Exxon gives money to the Heritage Foundation, 100% of the money is being counted in this total? That’s correct, right? I’m just now reading this study and am not an expert, so please correct me where I’m wrong. Seems like this study counts any dollars that go to these organizations that Brulle says oppose mandatory limits on carbon emissions. Seems like any dollar donated to any group that opposes mandatory limits on carbon emissions is included in this total. Am I right in reading that? ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/154 "2014-07-07T20:42:36Z")
Some, not all, of the front groups and astroturf “policy foundations” are right-wing groups with more than one agenda. Others – and there are many – are exclusively intended to spread disinformation about climate science. Oil and coal companies fund both. Are you suggesting that when oil companies fund the former (often through money-laundered arms-length third parties), they have no interest in climate change denial but are only promoting the other agendas? Because oil companies freely recognize the reality of AGW and reflect this in all their PR including their dark money expenditures, and if this means that the use of oil will be more rapidly phased out for clean energy, well, as good corporate citizens the oil companies are delighted with that outcome? Is that what you’re seriously suggesting? If so, please read my last post again. For that matter, read this whole thread again. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/155 "2014-07-07T20:54:00Z")
Just to be clear, these are things that Exxon is doing that are not good. I just want to get this right, so please correct me where I’m wrong. It’s not good that they publicly acknowledge climate change is happening and is caused by man-made emissions of green house gases. It’s also not a good thing if they provide funding to environmental organizations because that’s just for PR purposes and so they can later control them. It’s not a good thing that they disclose what their emissions are. It’s not a good thing that they have shown they are accountable to their shareholders’ concerns and provide a detailed report for the Carbon Disclosure Project. It’s not a good thing that they publicly support a carbon tax. Just want to get my talking points, right. None of those are good? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/156 "2014-07-07T21:07:36Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > Just to be clear, these are things that Exxon is doing that are not good. I just want to get this right, so please correct me where I’m wrong. > > It’s not good that they publicly acknowledge climate change is happening and is caused by man-made emissions of green house gases. Missed the point by a mile, that is a point in their favor, but completely wasted in light of what they are doing in the background. > [@LonghornDave](#): > > It’s also not a good thing if they provide funding to environmental organizations because that’s just for PR purposes and so they can later control them. IIRC in England for example the hard liquor companies are funding health groups that are against them in principle, recently there was the item that those health groups were in favor of minimal prices for hard liquor, but after a few years of funding from the hard liquor companies those groups suddenly dropped that idea. Sometimes subtle pressure will do wonders. And it is, as pointed before one of the few cards that they have left to play, the political one is now one of the big ones. > [@LonghornDave](#): > > It’s not a good thing that they disclose what their emissions are. Missing the point again, it is good, but it is a lousy deal once one looks at the details and what they refused to look at when doing those disclosures. > [@LonghornDave](#): > > It’s not a good thing that they have shown they are accountable to their shareholders’ concerns and provide a detailed report for the Carbon Disclosure Project. Same thing. And this also ignores the pressure many CEOs and members of the fossil fuel companies should be getting from those shareholders for using their power to undermine what they are “officially” supporting now. > [@LonghornDave](#): > > It’s not a good thing that they publicly support a carbon tax. Again, show me were their funded groups like Heritage Foundation or Americans for Prosperity are supporting politicians that are in favor of it. > [@LonghornDave](#): > > Just want to get my talking points, right. None of those are good? Some of them are, but incomplete as usual. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/157 "2014-07-07T21:36:37Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Some, not all, of the front groups and astroturf “policy foundations” are right-wing groups with more than one agenda. Others – and there are many – are exclusively intended to spread disinformation about climate science. Oil and coal companies fund both. Are you suggesting that when oil companies fund the former (often through money-laundered arms-length third parties), they have no interest in climate change denial but are only promoting the other agendas? Because oil companies freely recognize the reality of AGW and reflect this in all their PR including their dark money expenditures, and if this means that the use of oil will be more rapidly phased out for clean energy, well, as good corporate citizens the oil companies are delighted with that outcome? Is that what you’re seriously suggesting? If so, please read my last post again. For that matter, read this whole thread again. I’m suggesting that donating to groups like the Heritage Foundation shouldn’t count as funding climate change denialism. I’m not suggesting anything like what you posted. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/158 "2014-07-07T21:40:26Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > I’m suggesting that donating to groups like the Heritage Foundation shouldn’t count as funding climate change denialism. I’m not suggesting anything like what you posted. Sorry, but they count, as MediaMatters noticed: [http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/28/meet-the-climate-denial-machine/191545](http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/28/meet-the-climate-denial-machine/191545) > [@](#): > > Heritage Foundation > > The Heritage Foundation, one of the country’s most influential conservative think tanks, casts doubt on the scientific consensus that human activity is contributing to climate change and opposes efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions. A 2010 white paper states: “The only consensus over the threat of climate change that seems to exist these days is that there is no consensus.” Senior Policy Analyst Ben Lieberman has said that “global warming is clearly not a crisis and should not be addressed as one.” Citing presentations on “Climategate” at a Heartland Institute conference, he accused UN scientists of conspiring to “manufacture a global warming crisis.” > > Heritage runs an online database of policy “experts” that includes climate contrarians Fred Singer, Cato’s Patrick Michaels, Heartland’s Joseph Bast, CEI’s Myron Ebell and Chris Horner, and [JunkScience.com](http://JunkScience.com)’s Steve Milloy. > > The Heritage Foundation has received funding from ExxonMobil and the Koch Family Foundations. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/159 "2014-07-07T21:43:39Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Again, show me were their funded groups like Heritage Foundation or Americans for Prosperity are supporting politicians that are in favor of it. Well, why couldn’t they be funding these groups for totally unrelated reasons to climate change? These groups have almost nothing to do with climate change. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/160 "2014-07-07T21:49:21Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Sorry, but they count, as MediaMatters noticed: > > [Meet The Climate Denial Machine | Media Matters for America](http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/28/meet-the-climate-denial-machine/191545) That’s craziness. The Heritage Foundation has a history going back years and years before Climate Change was even a thought. Maybe they like their positions on taxes for example. Maybe recent donations reflect the Affordable Care Act. Maybe they like their positions on National Defense. If you really wanted to count these donations, it would seem to make sense to proportionally adjust down the dollar amount that they are counting to reflect what portion of their budget these organizations spend on Climate Change activism. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303.md?page=9)