The Heartland Institute, a notorious US climate change skeptic group, responded to a letter the DeSmogBlog team recently penned for the Philadelphia Daily News. Creating a perception of impartiality is their theme on the issue of tobacco and climate change science. Is it then just a coincidence that the same groups funded by oil money, such as Heartland, are the same groups “skeptical” about climate change?
This article from the LA Times is a few days old now, but it's a thoughtful piece about the reasons why we aren't, as a culture, inclined towards graver concern about the threat we're facing from global warming. Worth reading.
He lists four reasons why we aren't already up in arms about it. The title of the piece harkens from this one:
The editorial page editors of the Wall Street Journal have a love affair with longtime skeptic Richard Lindzen. It's easy to see why.Wind him up and he says the same thing -- only with more obscurity and complexity than the previous time around.If you're up to it, read Lindzen's latest in the WSJ.Then consider just one inconvenient example from his writing.
Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.
There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.