Exxon Still Sponsoring Deniers

[one...two...tree 2,762]

by Kate Sheppard, Mother Jones

ExxonMobil is still funding groups that deny climate change, despite claiming last year that it had stopped doing so.

Reports the Independent:

Free-market, anti-climate change think-tanks such as the Atlas Economic Research Foundation in the US and the International Policy Network in the UK have received grants totalling hundreds of thousands of pounds from the multinational energy company ExxonMobil. Both organisations have funded international seminars pulling together climate change deniers from across the globe.

Josh Harkinson reported on Atlas's role in the international climate change denier web in December, and Exxon topped our list of climate deniers in December. In fact, they've been the top source of climate-change-denier funding for some time, as Chris Mooney reported for Mother Jones in 2005. Exxon gave Atlas $100,000 in 2008, according to the oil company's reports, and Atlas has in turn supported at least 30 other foreign think-tanks that spread climate change misinformation. A number of these groups have been at the forefront of efforts to flog the so-called ClimateGate issue, and are now leading assaults on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

ExxonMobil's response? "We have the same concerns as people everywhere—and that is how to provide the world with the energy it needs while reducing greenhouse gas emissions," the company said in a statement to the Independent. Yes, ExxonMobil, the fossil fuel-giant, is just like "people everywhere."

link

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

link

The only "deniers" are the ones that still believe that ######!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The only "deniers" are the ones that still believe that ######!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Why do you hate the US Constitution?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Why do I hate the US Constitution?

God knows why.

The petitioners were found to have standing, the Clean Air Act does give the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases, and the EPA is required to review its contention that it has discretion in regulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions—specifically, its current rationale for not regulating was found to be inadequate, and the agency must articulate a reasonable basis in order to avoid regulation.

In addition, the majority report commented that "greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act’s capacious definition of air pollutant."

wiki

[mawilson 2,133]

Note how they stopped using the terms "global warming" or "global cooling"... it's just "climate change" now.

This way, they can always blame "climate change" whether it's hot or cold.

[natty bumppo 297]

Note how they stopped using the terms "global warming" or "global cooling"... it's just "climate change" now.

This way, they can always blame "climate change" whether it's hot or cold.

now you're getting warmer ... keep going

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Note how they stopped using the terms "global warming" or "global cooling"... it's just "climate change" now.

This way, they can always blame "climate change" whether it's hot or cold.

They sure know how to argue a point.

[Ban Hammer 14,668]

Why do you hate the US Constitution?