If you claim to represent a grass roots movement, but in fact are in the pay of someone to make it look like a grass roots movement, a new term is being used and it is “astroturfing”, or a fake grass roots movement.
An English blog site has taken on the AGWers that continually say that the “deniers” are astroturfers because they are funded by Exxon and other corporate interests. I guess it is unsurprising that the media cares little that the AGW movement gets huge sums of money from government and industry. The last estimate I saw was a figure of about $5 billion in grants, study moneys etc from governments. And if you look at the Pew Center’s group of companies that support the AGW movement, you would wonder how any honest person could point a finger at skeptics. The blog, Climate Resistance wrote an article in January of this year that looks at some of the money flow that supports the AGW movement. It shows how some of the supporters that claim to be above the fray are plugging their companies that benefit from all the AGW hype. The blog sums up the story as follows:
The environmental orthodoxy is a tangled web of corporate interests, policy-makers, -movers and -shakers, academics, NGO’s and activists – all pushing in the same direction. Which would be just fine if the idea had been tested democratically. But it hasn’t. We’ve said it many times… environmentalism has not risen to prominence through its own energies: it has not developed from a mass movement; it isn’t representative of popular interests. It is useful only to various organisations that have otherwise struggled to justify themselves over the last few decades. The political parties have bought it. Various ‘radical’ organisations have bought it. Large sections of the media have bought it. Academic departments and funding agencies have bought it. Little wonder that corporate interests have been able to jump upon the bandwagon and play their hearts out for personal financial gain.
To read the whole blog, click here
There might be global warming or cooling but the important issue is whether we, as a human race, can do anything about it.
There are a host of porkies and not very much truth barraging us everyday so its difficult to know what to believe.
I think I have simplified the issue in an entertaining way on my blog which includes some issues connected with climategate and “embarrassing” evidence.
In the pipeline is an analysis of the economic effects of the proposed emission reductions. Watch this space or should I say Blog
Please feel welcome to visit and leave a comment.
PS The term “porky” is listed in the Australian Dictionary of Slang.( So I’m told.)