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.
Although all public relations professionals are bound by a duty to not knowingly mislead the public, some have executed comprehensive campaigns of misinformation on behalf of industry clients on issues ranging from tobacco and asbestos to seat belts.
Lately, these fringe players have turned their efforts to creating confusion about climate change. This PR campaign could not be accomplished without the compliance of media as well as the assent and participation of leaders in government and business.
Or More?
Is that the money that went to "nonprofits"? Or did more go to fund speaking engagements, bulk orders of books, accounted for in other categories?
Who received the big $$
to raise the publics panic
300,000,000
a. the # of lies in "inconvenient truth"
b. al gore's monthly electricity bill
c. the # of feet in algore's new boat
d. the amount of $ algore so proudly spends to confuse himself
the answer is d for those that didn't know. how can u keep hammering on the point of money spent when you dont address the 3 HUNDRED MILLION dollar campaign of mr. gore and cohorts.
$125,000 in total? Is this
$125,000 in total? Is this amount somehow going to 'confuse' the public on the issue?
$125,000 in total
It doesn't take a lot of money to confuse some people, like you for example.
A disingenuous question
and really you cannot be naïve enough to be genuinely asking this.
We all know how the traditional media (TV and newspapers) outlets work.
Assuming we are not talking about war, famine, pestilence or celebrities, then if there is a perception of a debate, these outlets will publish both sides without regard for the depth of expertise and evidence on the opposing sides. Not being a journalist I don't know whether to blame the business model or journalistic education. But $125,000 would pay a couple of blokes and a word processor enough to produce dissenting think tank crap for quite a long time.