Back before the public was fully convinced by independent medical studies that cigarette smoking was harmful to humans, the corporations who profited from the sale of tobacco products sponsored hundreds of "studies" conducted by paid medical professionals whose sole purpose was to cast doubt on the truth about the dangers of their product. Years later it became obvious that the only scientists to conclude smoking was safe were scientists who had been paid to reach that conclusion. Mercenaries can be found to promote any proposition, no matter how bogus, if there is enough cash to call the tune.
Today's Tennessean (motto: "That's right, it's not the Nashville Tennessean, asshole... just The Tennessean!") has an article concerning documents that were recently leaked from the Heartland Institute which detail efforts on the part of some very wealthy (and anonymous) donors to promote climate change deniers, websites, and in some cases, school materials. Among the leaked documents are some which show Heartland pays its global warming skeptics upwards of $300,000 a year, and paid an Energy Department consultant $100,000 to design a curriculum to counter mainstream scientific school materials concerning man-made global warming.
The article says Heartland raised more than $2 million from insurance companies (WTF?), another half million from tobacco producers (again, WTF?), and raked in a $14 million donation from one anonymous individual. (think things go better with Koch?)
When that kind of money is in play, you can buy any kind of results and spokespeople your crank cause might need. Obviously, keeping doubt in the public's mind about man-made climate change is in the best interests of those who currently profit from doing business as usual, regardless of the outcome for mankind or the planet itself.
Think back to those television and magazine ads for cigarettes in the Sixties when everything was designed to make smoking "cool" or sophisticated. I'm not sure how you sell pollution and rising sea levels to the next generation, but if you give me a few million to work on an ad campaign I can probably come up with something "cool" and sophisticated to show for your cash.
Why do you think it is that one side of the political chasm sees global climate change as the primary threat to man's survival, while the other side sees it as a threat to their global conglomerates and profit margins? Could it be that one party's sole purpose is to promote and protect the interests of the wealthiest among us, while the other occasionally does right by the majority?
Can you name a liberal or progressive think tank that pays millions of dollars to disseminate false information and bogus science to promote their theories? Can you think of a financial windfall angle for those who would warn of an impending ecological disaster?
On the other hand, can you think of the financial damage honest scientific fact could bring to those who are heavily invested in fossil fuels, combustion engines, and pollution belching factories?
That explains the difference between facts and propaganda, liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans.





