>Taken together, the analyses by Yale University sociologist Justin Farrell, does the best job yet of connecting the dots along the paths from donation to representation of contrarian viewpoints by politicians and in the media, from whom people take many of their cues on policy, says Robert Brulle, a sociologist at Drexel University in Philadelphia.

>Monday's study fills what Dr. Brulle calls a key gap in the sequence of steps that leads from donations to the appearance of climate-contrarian language in the media, where most people get their climate information. It suggests that the message donors are paying for increasingly has worked its way into the media, where the public gets most of its information on climate change.

>This follows work Dr. Farrell published Nov. 23 that identifies the links within the network, highlights several themes contrarians have included in their material, and explores the impact funding has on the emphasis those themes receive.

>Over the past decade, other peer-reviewed studies, as well as books, have been written about efforts by key players in the fossil-fuel industry and among conservative groups to sow doubt among politicians and the public about the need to curtail the greenhouse-gas emissions that are driving global warming.

>It's not a question of winning over a majority of Americans, notes Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communications and a collaborator on a project with researchers at George Mason University in Virginia that tracks public opinion on climate-change issues.

>Contrarians “just need to be strong enough to say no” to major policy decisions aimed at curbing global warming, he says.

>The broader issue remains, however – “how a culture of misinformation can be spread so effectively within the American public,” writes Farrell in an e-mail.

>In trying to help answer that question, the new work “adds a level of detail and integration that we did not previously have,” adds Naomi Oreskes, professor of the history of science at Harvard University and co-author of the book, “Merchants of Doubt,” in an e-mail.

>Farrell opted to treat climate contrarians as a social movement and searched for the links between all of the key players to gauge their relative influence with politicians and the media.

>Initial outlines of the network have appeared in previous studies. Two years ago, for example, Dr. Brulle's research identified 140 foundations that between 2003 and 2010 collectively contributed nearly $560 million to 91 conservative organizations focused either exclusively or in part on casting doubt on climate change and the need for action to counter it.

>Farrell identified another 73 groups, expanding the sample to 164. To represent the donor community, he focused on ExxonMobile and the Koch Family Foundations. Previous studies had identified these two organizations as among the most influential.

>In addition, he used computer-based text analysis to hunt for common themes among nearly 41,000 documents or speeches the network produced during the 20-year period.

>The first part of the analysis, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, focused on the donors and the organizations they fund.

>Not all contrarian groups in the sample received money from ExxonMobil or the Koch Family Foundations, the study noted. Those that did, however, were more likely than the received-nots among contrarian groups to write and publish documents aimed at polarizing public views on climate change.

>Prior to this analysis, “we didn't know that there was a difference between these two groups,” Brulle says. “We knew there were variations among groups, but we hadn't tied that to their funding.”

>Perhaps more important, the money was a signal of the recipients' places nearest the center of the contrarian network. That's where the money goes because “they are better organized and better connected, which leads to more influence,” Farrell notes.

>In addition, Farrell's data hint at the influence corporate and foundation money may have on the themes that recipients emphasize. By 2013, for example, funded groups were placing a higher focus on criticizing scientists' analysis of global temperature than groups that had not received funding. That marked a reversal from what had been the norm during the past 20 years, and the change took place over the past eight years, data show.

>The shift loosely tracks the rise of the so-called hiatus or pause in global warming as an issue. The notion of a pause didn't come from the scientific literature, where researchers are interested in trends over century time scales, notes Drexel's Brulle.

>Instead, “it was a climate disinformation meme” he says, one that the media amplified. It sent scientists scrambling to explain it, even though the decade in question not only was the warmest on record, it hosted several of the warmest years on record – later to be topped by 2014 and now expected to be topped by 2015.

>The second of Farrell's two studies takes the initial analysis an extra step by exploring the potential connections between the material contrarian groups funded by elite donors publish and similarities in the climate concepts appearing in the media – dubbed semantic similarity.

>The media information comes from articles published in The New York Times, USA Today, and the Washington Times. He also tracks the language similarities with presidential speeches and speeches from the floor of Congress.

>Over the past 20 years, the semantic similarity between climate contrarian groups and these high-profile public outlets has increased across the board, he finds. Although the steepest increase occurred in the media, the research doesn't distinguish between news and opinion pieces, and does not include the context of the broader article in which the terms appeared.

>That was followed by a less pronounced increase in presidential speeches. The smallest increase in similarity appears in congressional speeches.

>“Contrarian language began to filter in to what news media were writing,” Farrell explains. “Over time, the language in the media began to reflect this language.”

Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes talks about the same issue and parallels the tobacco industry's success at slowing down information (took 50 years before government warnings appeared on packs) with climate change. Other corporations have followed suit and normally fund heavily for PR campaigns and thinktanks. Not news but she also backs with sources. I only watched the documentary which probably isn't as good because I'm lazy. Toxic Hot Seat has a more specific example using the chemical industry's push for placing and selling carcinogenic flame retardants in furniture and foams (see TB 117).

>>4499
Pnas posts some legit insightful studies. But I'd like to talk about the subject of disinformation for climate change. This polarization isn't only caused by doubt that climate change is occurring, but also by necessity of the fossil fuels that we use. I've heard people arguing about deficiency of new energy sources and how changing to a new energy source can be costly, but what really scares people is how resourceful is a new approach to energy. This scare could be fuelled by disinformation spread by news media but I'd like to think of people as habitual creatures that don't like change in their normal daily tasks unless they are absolutely required to.

>>4499
It's an "Inconvenient Truth." That's why. They realize that if they accept global warming as true, they would start feeling guilty about driving gas guzzlers and leaving the lights on. That if politicians stop denying science, we'd see more Pigovian taxes on gas and energy. It's inconvenient for them to accept science as being real, so they just pretend it's not. The number of people who accepted that humans were causing global warming was increasing for years, then global warming denial went back up during the recession and high gas prices. Because then it was less convenient to accept the truth. That, and religious beliefs.
>Only God can control the climate, humans are insignificant and nothing we do can compare to the power of God

>>4581
This. People would deny that tobacco caused health problems, not because there was any science to support it, but because they were afraid of letting the government regulate anything. It's exactly what's happening with global warming. The science deniers don't have any rational reason to support their view, they just don't like the government and don't want the government to do anything to mitigate climate change.

Also of the handful of global warming deniers in the scientific community, many have received 6-figure payments from the oil and gas industry. Throws a wrench in the conspiracy theory that scientists are just in it for the money, when the ones making the most money are being paid by fossil fuel companies to deny global warming.

>>4593
>but because they were afraid of letting the government regulate anything.
But this is another artificial fear instilled into people by the media. They call it "freedom" and they convince everybody that the permission to do something is essential to their happiness, even if that thing is detrimental to their health or if they can't afford it anyway.

>>4594
>They call it "freedom" and they convince everybody that the permission to do something is essential to their happiness, even if that thing is detrimental to their health or if they can't afford it anyway.
Are you saying people should be forbidden from doing something just because it's unhealthy or some people can't afford it?

This article is written upon the absolute and total assertion that "greenhouse-gasses"(sensationalist science) is the main driver for global climate change.
This, regardless of being true, cannot be stopped if true without reducing human population massively.
>>4593
>"science deniers" don't have anything to support their world view
Except they do.
They are not denying science, they are denying the dogmatism that is "climatology".
A Serbian Geologist from a hundred years ago has been more accurate than any modern "climatologist".
>only God can control the climate
Global climate has the most massive changes in absence of human presence, and the amount of energy and emissions we produce are not significant to create global climate change (as the earth has natural processes to cope with most of what humans create). We also live in a very cold period in history, an interglacious period at that, and have been steadily warming since the ice age. We are nowhere near the level of tempature during the mionian, Roman, or even Midevil warming periods.
>>4592
Alternative energy sources (Wind, Solar, Hydro, or Geothermal) are too expensive, ineffecient, take up too much space, do not provide a STABLE source of energy on demand, are too isolated for use (geothermal), and require tons of upkeep.
They also do more ecological damage than petroleum energy sources.

The most ecological and economical alternative is Nuclear Energy. There isn't much room for debate.
>>4594
Stopping the use of petroleum fuels would cause mass economic collapse and the transfer to "green" energy is more ecologically damaging than the current infastructre. It's also more expensive, takes up too much land space, and doesn't provide energy on demand.

>>4674
Do you work for an oil company?

>>4499
According to this, conservatives are so hellbent on destroying the world that they spend their sheckles to spread information.

>Why can't they just accept our predictions that have a history of being overblown?

>>4677
No, he's Thamuel L. Jackthon from Kingsman

>>4677
No. I am actually a Geologist and working for a non-poliferation company.

>>4652
>Are you saying people should be forbidden from doing something just some people can't afford it?
No, I am not. I am saying that those people who can't afford it shouldn't care if they are allowed to do it or not.
>Are you saying people should be forbidden from doing something just because it's unhealthy
You mean like forcing people to use a seat-belt?
I don't think I have a good answer for that question. All I can say is one thing:
I believe there is a difference between "choosing to do something dangerous" and "choosing to do something and being (willfully) ignorant of the danger".

Climate change is provably happening, and has been a permanent feature of our global climate since the planet became stable after it formed.

The reason being is that, despite what was commonly held true, our planet actually isn't in the goldilocks zone, at least, not entirely.
Our planet is on the outside edge of the zone.
This is where the instability comes from. Equally the angle of the planet creates some interesting formations in the upper atmospheres currents.

Right now, our planet is at the chaotic uprise stage right before the climate system collapses in to an ice age. You can see these exact same chaotic rises in ice cores and sediment layers, all following the same thing.
However, in our case, our contribution to the climate has sped it up a little bit. Not massively, but enough to be significant.

Humans should not even bother trying to stop it, the climate is already in that downward spiral. It is already too late. Humans need to adapt or die.
We need to build large habitats partially under ground to limit heat loss for the sake of containing and safeguarding large numbers of animals.
Equally, underwater habitats or farms in the ground habitats to safeguard fish species.
Anything else is stupid and a waste of money.
"Saving" the climate will only destroy it harder. Geoengineering is not a good thing. It will crash the climate harder, probably even irrecoverably.

>>4674
>This article is written upon the absolute and total assertion that "greenhouse-gasses"(sensationalist science) is the main driver for global climate change
That's because it's not only a fact, but common knowledge. Denying AGW is literally /x/-tier at this point.

>>5360
It's not fact.
The approach to modern climatology is entirely dogmatic and is a new age of anti-scientific method, where the most applauded hypothesis is fact until disproven, rather than the best theory is accepted until new evidence arises.
There is no definitive proof of Anthropogenic global warming, or climate change. We are in a critical interglacious period and have been warming steadily since the ice age.
Climate change is real and non-anthropogenic.

>>5460
The whole point of the article is that it's mostly only Americans who think AGW isn't happening, due in part to the influence of thinktanks formed by American petro/coal industries.

>>5460
>There is no definitive proof of Anthropogenic global warming, or climate change.
There's no definitive proof of anything in science you fucking retard that's not how science works. This is why people call you science denialists because you know literally nothing about science. There's no definitive proof of evolution or germ theory or fucking anything.

There is overwhelming evidence that humans are causing global warming, and there is no real evidence to the contrary. AGW is the only theory to explain the current warming, all other explanations lack any evidence to support them. Nobody has come up with any evidence to disprove AGW, nor has anybody come up with a single viable alternative theory to explain the warming.

>>5465
I understand, I am not an American. But I do work for an American anti-poliferation comapny.
>>5470
>There's no definitive proof of anything in science you fucking retard that's not how science works.
There is a term and a limit to which things become scientific facts, or laws. This is how science works.
>This is why people call you science denialists because you know literally nothing about science.
I am a Geologist and a history fan. Do you know of a certain Serbian Geologist that's been more accurate in predicting global climate change a hundred years before modern climatologists?
>There's no definitive proof of evolution or germ theory or fucking anything.
There is substantial proof for both of those things, they are age old discussions and generally hold up to constant scrutiny.
>There is overwhelming evidence that humans are causing global warming, and there is no real evidence to the contrary.
There is not overwhelming evidence that Humans are causing anthropogenic climate change (the term isn't global warming anymore m8), the earth's has natural cycles of cooling and heating because of our orbit and the effect on climate the movement of plates have. We are in an interglacious period, and now in a critical one coming to the end of the holocene.
The evidence submitted is a product of science following the money, and learning how to avoid defunding. As well as the only people who are attracted to climatology are those that seek to be employed in the field of APGW research to "prove" it. While those that don't follow are denied from the positions and any other scientists (geologists, oceanographers, marine biologists, astro-phyz, METEROLOGISTS, and so on) are left out of the opinion or reference.

>>5470
>AGW is the only theory to explain the current warming, all other explanations lack any evidence to support them.
Milianovich cycles and cyclical ice ages explain everything perfectly, he predicted this period of warming exactly, I don't know why you assert such wrong claims.
>Nobody has come up with any evidence to disprove AGW, nor has anybody come up with a single viable alternative theory to explain the warming.
Except they have, you conveniently haven't looked for any.
AGW is substantiated by a dogmatic approach to global climate science, and in many cases, unfalsifyable data based on graphs and models that are wildly inaccurate in an attempt to describe global changes.

>>5018
Congratulations, you somehow managed to make a set of proposals that are even more expensive and unlikely to happen than cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

>>4504
>>Farrell opted to treat climate contrarians as a social movement and searched for the links between all of the key players to gauge their relative influence with politicians and the media.
This is really clever, I like it.

>>5519
He actually didn't.

>>5524
>large habitats partially underground
>>for the sake of animals
Not in your dreams
>underwater habitats or farms in the ground habitats
>>to safeguard fish species
Do you really think that this stuff is more likely to happen than cutting (not eliminating, mind you) greenhouse gas emissions?

>>5526
Climate change is real and non-anthropogenic.
You can't stop earth's natural cycles.
The compounding cost of "alternative" energy sources (besides nuclear) would be much more costly than building underground shelters.

>>5541
>>5559
Typical Americans

>>5562
I'm not an American.
I am an Australian geologist working for a nuclear non-poliferation company.

I'm tired of climate change because of misinformation from both sides of the argument.
One side tries to obfuscate the fact that there's a limit to finite resources, and the other side tries to sell me tickets to tomorrow's doomsday flick then constantly push it's release date back-- and don't forget all the alternate energy sources memes like solar highways.

>>5567
The oil companies see your doubt as something they can capitalize on. You have to consider that it makes business sense for them to debunk whatever a climate scientist comes up with whether because it's all bad for them.

It's a matter of all the multinational oil and gas companies combined with coal along with the finest PR and marketing that money can buy vs. 97% of the 1000 climate scientists (who haven't been bought off by BigOil&Coal) that there are in the world and Al Gore.

>>5572
>the 97% meme
It's based on classification of written papers, and they are very loose on those classifications.
Literally debunked a hundred times.
Regardless of its actuality,
Science doesn't work on consensus.
It never has and never will.
Otherwise you get dogmatism... oh wait that seems like what it is.

By the way, Oil companies have spend only a few hundred million or so "debunking" AGW.
Governments around the world shill out hundreds of billions for AGW research and development. Why should Oil companies not be able to fund their own research?

>>5572
>Established businesses vs prospective businesses and businesses under larger conglomerates
This isn't some fucking hollywood movie where it's the big bad corporation against underdog scientists. It's two vicious dogs fighting over a slab of meat, and it gets really tiring when you realize they'll employ the scumiest methods to get what they want. Don't get me wrong I love rooting for the good guys, but it's not that simple.

>>5567
>constantly push it's release date back

Anon, you really aren't paying attention.

The due date has been pushed up radically. 15-20 years ago the prediction was that we might see 3" or even 8" increase in sea level by 2100. Now we are already over 7" and talking about "hopefully ONLY" 3 feet by 2100.

As recent;y as 2009 we were negotiating international agreements to keep temperature rise under 2°C ... EVER ... and now we're talking about trying to keep it under 4°C by 2100, and many of the goals in the 2009 talks have largely evaporated.

We used to talk about trying to keep CO2 under 400 PPM in the atmosphere in the 1980s, then we started talking about keeping it under 450 ppm.

Now we are OVER 450 ppm and discussing what will happen when it passes 500 ppm between 2050 and 2060.

We used to talk about the serious shit that might start happening around 2100 or even out to 2200.

Now we are reporting that serious shit already happening in 2015, and a lot more by 2025 and by 2050.

Stop being a retarded dumbshit and pretending that the doomsday date is being pushed back. It's been moving forward at very frightening rates.

The real problem is people like you who have no fucking idea what you are talking about, just pulling shit out of your ass, then slapping it into a post and pretending you aren't a retarded child.

>>5575
> 97% is a meme
> Literally debunked a hundred times

> LITERALLY

Please do provide links to credible sources.

Which, of course, you cannot. But, feel free to at least go through the motions.

>>5577
The way I see it one side is just reporting science and the other side is trying desperately to save a dinosaur business model.

All the government grants for every climate scientist don't equal the amount of money spent on one press spin campaign or lobbying effort.

>>5587
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136
>>5589
>the way I see it is one side is trying to collapse a global economy and cause massive ecological damage while running around investing in retarded energy alternatives and the other is providing us with cheap and constant energy supply
You love to simplify things right?
>all the government grants do not equal
Literal bullshit.
Governments around the globe spend tens of billions of dollars on "AGW" and "green energy" research and development.
>>5585
It is ultimately beyond our control, the tempature rise has been at a constant rate and we've been steadily warming since the last mini ice age.
We live in one of the colder periods of history and are no where near the mionian or roman, or midevil warm period.
Historically C02 levels have been at unthinkable levels that we could never reach.

Climate change is real and non-anthropogenic

>>5587
Alarmist once again pronouncing their religion from the world stage only to get BTFOd.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

>>5585
You know what? I am a dumb shit, but what are you? You quote me all of this shit about CO2 emissions and water levels, but then even you're left guessing what and when these things are going to happen.
>Now we are reporting that serious shit already happening in 2015, and a lot more by 2025 and by 2050
>serious shit happening.
I'm being honest with you right now, this shit is confusing and I honestly don't care for one side or the others argument. So please tell me what exactly this "serious shit" is?

>>5589
>spin campaign or lobbying effort
Both sides do this, again, I'd love to see a shift to alternative fuel sources, but it just seems like there's not a lot of solid progress on one end, and the other side provides us with a dependence that everyone can't help but take them up on.

>>5597
>Governments around the globe spend tens of billions of dollars on "AGW" and "green energy" research and development.
I do not think it's anywhere near tens of billions. Also, I think the oil companies alone earn about that on average per company per year in net profit. Think of what all of them combined along with natural gas and coal.

>>5606
Natural gas is quite literally the cleanest energy source we have.
It doesn't matter what their profits are, governments spending money is practically unlimited nowadays.

Your point has zero validity.

>>5608
Natural Gas is non renewable and extraction takes an increasingly large environmental toll. Don't pretend like they aren't members of The Heartland Institute like all the others.

>>5504
>There is a term and a limit to which things become scientific facts, or laws.
NO THEY FUCKING DON'T YOU FUCKING RETARD. That's not how science works at all. Laws aren't just theories that got older, they cover completely different concepts and a completely different scope. Theories are broader and explain why/how something happens. There is no "term" or "limit" that will every change evolution or germ theory or global warming theory to a "law"

>There is substantial proof for both of those things, they are age old discussions and generally hold up to constant scrutiny.
Germ theory is only a decade older than global warming theory. And global warming theory has held up under scrutiny as well, as evidenced by the fact that nobody can come up with any evidence to contradict it or explain the warming in some other way.

>the term isn't global warming anymore m8
How can one person be so fucking stupid yet be so sure of himself? Global warming is the process of the globe getting warmer. Climate change is the change in climate that results from the globe getting warmer. They're both still valid terms, climate change refers specifically to the effects of global warming.

> the earth's has natural cycles of cooling and heating because of our orbit
Yes, Milankovitch cycles, which take tens of thousands of years so obviously aren't explaining a few decades of relatively rapid warming. And FYI, multiple things affect the climate. The existence of Milankovitch cycles does not mean the greenhouse effect doesn't exist. So I'm not sure why you believe in Milankovitch cycles yet deny that the greenhouse effect is real. Climate scientists look at all of this and more, such as volcanic activity and changes in solar intensity. Yet these do not explain the current warming (eg, we aren't seeing changes in volcanic activity to correlate with the warming)

>>5507
just read the above

>>5697
There hasn't been any accelerated warming in the "past few decades"
There has been a 0.2 increase in global tempature since 1980?

>>5703
>>5697
Sorry 0.8° since 1880

>>5703
We've seen more than 0.5 degree Celsius increase since 1975. That is a very rapid rate of warming on a historical scale. Compared to the 21,000 year and 41,000 year Milankovitch cycles, 40 years is an incredibly short time period, especially given that the rate of warming will increase as GHG concentrations rise. Right now we've got some good news because methane levels have flatlined, but CO2 levels are still increasing

what's the verdict /news/

Are americans stupid then or is the author stupid?

>>5740
The author needs a proctoligist to find his head.

>>4674

The earth's CO2 levels haven't been this high in 650,000 years. As a previous poster had already stated, the rising CO2 levels aren't the only thing giving scientists reason to believe in climate change.

>>5807
Comparitivly the ppm of C02 has been MUCH MUCH higher than what is now or 650,000 ago that of what is now.
Coincidentally the end of the Pleistocene was started about that time.
Magic eh?

Localized pollution is much more immediate and noticeable than global climate change tbh

>>5845
The difference is that didn't happen over the span of 100 years like it is now thanks to humans.

>>4499
the hottest year on record was 0.69 OF ONE DEGREE C hotter than the 20th century average

that is what they want you to panic about

>>5849
The holocene isn't ending anytime soon.
Those massive changes happened realitivly rapidly because of the closing of the channel between north and South America and the way it affected ocean current.

>>5868
how would you know that?

People are skeptical of climate change because it is never presented as just climate change. It is always packaged with doomsday type scenarios and calls for government led action.

CO2 undeniably absorbs more energy from the sun than our current mixture of air. Burning gasoline and oil releases CO2 into the atmosphere which will undeniably warm up the planet. You are going to have a hard time contesting these two facts. On the other hand. these two facts are just about everything we know for sure about climate change (along with equivalent knowledge about the other greenhouse gases). Everything else is an unverified hypothesis.

However, when someone says "Climate change will lead to the polar ice caps melting which will disrupt the oceans currents which will stop the flow of nutrients throughout the sea and earths entire biological ecosystem will take a catastrophic hit" you should be skeptical. When they then add "because of this we are going to start taxing you more" you should be very skeptical.

>>5889
co2 is plant food, and we are currently at a low level compared to historic levels

>>5886
By soon I mean a few thousand I think?
I can't remeber the calculations; and moronic scientists want to name it the Anthroscene

>>5923
so you have no idea, fair enough, well done for admitting it

>>5957
DUDE.
WARMING.
2015.
OIL COMPANIES.
RICH.
WHITE.
EVIL.
LMAO
M
A
O

>>5575
>Why should Oil companies not be able to fund their own research?
Why shouldn't you get a raise?

>>6300
I'm a bit confused.
But in my current job?
Because I've pretty much classed out within this company until some fucker above me dies or fucks up.
Maybe I'll move up if they need a second position but I doubt it.