Som vi skal se senere, er det en stor og pengesterk industri der ute som prøver å snu alt på hodet og attpåtil få støtte i befolkningen for dette. Det er et eldgammelt triks; å beskylde motstanderen for å bedrive med det en driver med selv, for å kamuflere sin egen agenda. Det er derfor klimatåkeleggerne beskylder klimaforskere for å være de korrupte.
Vi skal se på hvem som sitter på pengemidlene senere i dette dokumentet. Her er en smakebit;
1.Hva Exxon måtte ut med etter Exxon Valdez-ulykken? “As of December 15, 2009, Exxon paid all owed $507.5 million punitive damages, including lawsuit costs, plus interest, which were further distributed to thousands of plaintiffs.“
2.Oppgjøret til BP etter Deepwater Horizon-katastrofen i Mexicogulfen i 2010?: In September 2014, a U.S. District Court judge ruled that BP was primarily responsible for the oil spill because of its gross negligence and reckless conduct. In July 2015, BP agreed to pay $18.7 billion in fines, the largest corporate settlement in U.S. history.
3. David H. Koch og Charles G. Koch, de to brødrene som fortsatt er med i Koch Industries, er tilknyttet Koch family foundations og er kjent for deres finansielle støtte til konservative og libertarianske politiske grupper i USA. Du finner alltid Koch-brødrene på listene over verdens rikeste mennesker. Siden 1980-tallet har Koch foundations gitt mer enn USD 100 millioner til organisasjoner og tenketanker som Heritage Foundation og Cato Institute, samt i den seneste tid Americans for Prosperity. Årlig omsetning for Koch Industries har blitt estimert til å være hundre milliarder USD. [...] the Koch brothers have played an active role in opposing climate change legislation. Climate change skeptic Willie Soon received $230,000 from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. Organizations that the Koch brothers help fund, such as Americans for Prosperity, The Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, and the Manhattan Institute, have been active in questioning global warming. Americans for Prosperity and the Koch brothers influenced more than 400 members of Congress to sign a pledge to vot against climate change legislation that does not include offsetting tax cuts.
Alt handler om å få fokuset vekk fra at Co2 er skadelig for miljø og klima. DET er faktisk det eneste det handler om. Som en viktig del av denne planen, her er den konspiratoriske og paranoide alternative virkeligheten som disse mektige interessene og klimatåkeleggerne prøver å selge oss:
- at internasjonale klimaforskere - ca de siste 100 år - sammen har pønsket ut en plan for å lure verden til å tro at mennesker bidrar til klimaforandringer. Alle verdens land sine myndigheter har betalt disse forskerne enorme summer for å komme frem til dette slik at disse myndighetene kan pålegge sine borgere all slags avgifter og legge restriksjoner og hindringer i veien for fossil-brensel-industrien. (På samme måte som de har gjort med den snille tobakksindustrien). En hemmelig grønn industri står så klar til å bli søkkrike ved å gjøre verden om til en eneste stor vindmøllepark, men først må altså olje og kullindustrien “ryddes” av veien. Det er selvsagt de venstreskrudde kommunistene i Fns Klimapanel som styrer alt dette gjennom sin headmaster Al Gore og som forlenges gjennom Illuminati-avtalen (Paris-avtalen). Alt har blitt holdt skjult, inntil nå, ved hjelp av PK-mediene (det politiske kartellet), som naturligvis er styrt av de samme myndighetene. Men, denne planen er nå endelig avslørt av en modig rekke av nettroll, bloggere, milliardærer, kreasjonister og fossil-brensel-industrien.
På hjemmesiden deres sier de det rett ut:
Det er gjort en rekke gode studier på konspiratorisk tenking om klima:
An overwhelming percentage of climate scientists agree that human activity is causing the global climate to change in ways that will have deleterious consequences both for the environment and for humankind. While scientists have alerted both the public and policy makers to the dangers of continuing or increasing the current rate of carbon emission, policy proposals intended to curb carbon emission and thereby mitigate climate change have been resisted by a notable segment of the public. Some of this resistance comes from those not wanting to incur costs or change energy sources (i.e., the carbon-based energy industry). Others oppose policies intended to address climate change for ideological reasons (i.e., they are opposed to the collectivist nature of the solutions usually proposed). But perhaps the most alarming and visible are those who oppose solutions to climate change because they believe, or at least claim to believe, that anthropogenic climate change is not really happening and that climate scientists are lying and their data is fake.
Resistance, in this latter case, sometimes referred to as climate “skepticism” or “denialism,” varies from region to region in strength but worldwide has been a prominent part of a political force strong enough to preclude both domestic and global policy makers from making binding efforts to avert the further effects of anthropogenic climate change. For example, a 2013 poll in the United States showed that almost 40% believed that climate change was a hoax.
Among American Conservatives, but not Liberals, trust in science has been declining since the 1970's. Climate science has become particularly polarized, with Conservatives being more likely than Liberals to reject the notion that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the globe. Conversely, opposition to genetically-modified (GM) foods and vaccinations is often ascribed to the political Left although reliable data are lacking. There are also growing indications that rejection of science is suffused by conspiracist ideation, that is the general tendency to endorse conspiracy theories including the specific beliefs that inconvenient scientific findings constitute a “hoax.”
What drives conspiracy theorizing in the United States? Conspiracy theories can undermine the legitimacy and efficacy of government policy, and sometimes lead to violence. Unfortunately prior studies on the topic have been anecdotal and impressionistic. For purchase on this problem, we attempt the first systematic data collection of conspiracy theories at the mass and elite levels by examining published letters to the editor of the New York Times from 1897 to 2010 and a validating sample from the Chicago Tribune. We argue that perceived power asymmetries, indicated by international and domestic conflicts, influence when and why conspiracy theories resonate in the U.S. On this reasoning, conspiracy theories conform to a strategic logic that helps vulnerable groups manage threats. Further, we find that both sides of the domestic partisan divide partake in conspiracy theorizing equally, though in an alternating pattern, and foreign conspiracy theories crowd out domestic conspiracy theories during heightened foreign threat.
Does it take one to know one? Endorsement of conspiracy theories is influenced by personal willingness to conspire
We advance a new account of why people endorse conspiracy theories, arguing that individuals use the social–cognitive tool of projection when making social judgements about others. In two studies, we found that individuals were more likely to endorse conspiracy theories if they thought they would be willing, personally, to participate in the alleged conspiracies.
Study 1 established an association between conspiracy beliefs and personal willingness to conspire, which fully mediated a relationship between Machiavellianism and conspiracy beliefs. In Study 2, participants primed with their own morality were less inclined than controls to endorse conspiracy theories – a finding fully mediated by personal willingness to conspire. These results suggest that some people think ‘they conspired’ because they think ‘I would conspire’.
Climate change is an issue on which there is a robust scientific position but much public debate and disagreement. People’s opinions about climate change depend on many factors, but ideology tends to be the most important. One important factor that can explain climate change attitudes is underlying conspiracy thinking (Lewandowsky, Gignac, et al., 2013). This suggests that climate denialism is not due to a fair examination of the available scientific evidence, but rather an ideological critique that appears largely immune to evidence and reason (Uscinski & Parent, 2014). Conspiracy-tinged rhetoric, which has become commonplace in climate change discourse, can have far-reaching negative consequences in the effort to mitigate the effects of global climate change (Douglas & Sutton, 2015). Given the severity of global climate change, we call on social scientists to further investigate the causes and consequences of climate change conspiracy theorizing.
When people’s worldview and identity are threatened by a scientific fact or its implications (e.g., the regulatory implications of climate change), they frequently resort to “identity-protective cognition” (e.g., Cook, 2016; Garrett, 2017; Kahan et al., 2007b; Whitson & Galinsky, 2008). Identity-protective cognition restores the person’s worldview against an attack and can manifest itself in a variety of ways, for example, by altering subjective risk perception (Kahan et al., 2007b). In the case of climate change, however, identity-protective cognition faces a particularly strong challenge in light of the overwhelming scientific consensus that people’s activities are causing our climate to change (for a review of the consensus evidence, see Cook et al., 2016). Given the overwhelming scientific evidence, the only available avenue for circumventing the consensus was by reinterpreting its existence. Instead of accepting that this consensus emerged as the result of researchers converging independently on the same evidence-based view, an alternative explanation for its existence was put forward: a presumed conspiracy among climate scientists, who are colluding in the “manufacture” of evidence for some nefarious purpose. Conspiracy theories are one of only a few rhetorical devices that can counter the evidence demonstrating the existence of global climate change, since there is currently little scientific basis on which to dissent. In this way, conspiracy theories can act as a disruptive political mechanism: They can alter the grounds on which a debate is occurring.
Climate change is an issue on which there is a robust scientific position but much public debate and disagreement. People’s opinions about climate change depend on many factors, but ideology tends to be the most important. One important factor that can explain climate change attitudes is underlying conspiracy thinking (Lewandowsky, Gignac, et al., 2013). This suggests that climate denialism is not due to a fair examination of the available scientific evidence, but rather an ideological critique that appears largely immune to evidence and reason (Uscinski & Parent, 2014). Conspiracy-tinged rhetoric, which has become commonplace in climate change discourse, can have far-reaching negative consequences in the effort to mitigate the effects of global climate change (Douglas & Sutton, 2015).
When people’s worldview and identity are threatened by a scientific fact or its implications (e.g., the regulatory implications of climate change), they frequently resort to “identity-protective cognition” (e.g., Cook, 2016; Garrett, 2017; Kahan et al., 2007b; Whitson & Galinsky, 2008). Identity-protective cognition restores the person’s worldview against an attack and can manifest itself in a variety of ways, for example, by altering subjective risk perception (Kahan et al., 2007b). In the case of climate change, however, identity-protective cognition faces a particularly strong challenge in light of the overwhelming scientific consensus that people’s activities are causing our climate to change (for a review of the consensus evidence, see Cook et al., 2016). Given the overwhelming scientific evidence, the only available avenue for circumventing the consensus was by reinterpreting its existence. Instead of accepting that this consensus emerged as the result of researchers converging independently on the same evidence-based view, an alternative explanation for its existence was put forward: a presumed conspiracy among climate scientists, who are colluding in the “manufacture” of evidence for some nefarious purpose. Conspiracy theories are one of only a few rhetorical devices that can counter the evidence demonstrating the existence of global climate change, since there is currently little scientific basis on which to dissent. In this way, conspiracy theories can act as a disruptive political mechanism: They can alter the grounds on which a debate is occurring.
Climate change is an issue on which there is a robust scientific position but much public debate and disagreement. People’s opinions about climate change depend on many factors, but ideology tends to be the most important. One important factor that can explain climate change attitudes is underlying conspiracy thinking (Lewandowsky, Gignac, et al., 2013). This suggests that climate denialism is not due to a fair examination of the available scientific evidence, but rather an ideological critique that appears largely immune to evidence and reason (Uscinski & Parent, 2014). Conspiracy-tinged rhetoric, which has become commonplace in climate change discourse, can have far-reaching negative consequences in the effort to mitigate the effects of global climate change (Douglas & Sutton, 2015).
________________
På Oljekrisa.no, står klimafornektings-artiklene side om side med mørke konspirasjonsteorier om 11 september. Tenk litt på akkurat det. Ta all den tiden du trenger. Ikke tenk så mye på stavefeilene.
Hvorfor disse tingene -som tilsynelatende ikke har noe med hverandre å gjøre - presenteres side om side, kommer vi inn på straks.
Have you ever noticed that when you present people with facts that are contrary to their deepest held beliefs they always change their minds? Me neither. In fact, people seem to double down on their beliefs in the teeth of overwhelming evidence against them. The reason is related to the worldview perceived to be under threat by the conflicting data.
Creationists, for example, dispute the evidence for evolution in fossils and DNA because they are concerned about secular forces encroaching on religious faith. Anti-vaxxers distrust big pharma and think that money corrupts medicine, which leads them to believe that vaccines cause autism despite the inconvenient truth that the one and only study claiming such a link was retracted and its lead author accused of fraud. The 9/11 truthers focus on minutiae like the melting point of steel in the World Trade Center buildings that caused their collapse because they think the government lies and conducts “false flag” operations to create a New World Order. Climate deniers study tree rings, ice cores and the PPM of greenhouse gases because they are passionate about freedom, especially that of markets and industries to operate unencumbered by restrictive government regulations. Obama birthers desperately dissected the president’s long-form birth certificate in search of fraud because they believe that the nation’s first African- American president is a socialist bent on destroying the country.
Det er ganske skremmende, når jeg sjekker kildene bak klimafornektingen her hjemme, ender jeg alltid raskt opp på nettsteder som, i tillegg til klimafornekting, også fremmer ting som antivaxxing, fremmedhat/frykt, og konspira om 9/11. Noen sprer endatil klimafornektelse side om side med Holocaustfornektelse. Mange klimafornektere er paranoide og helt vrangforestillet av stigmatisert kunnskap: pseudovitenskap, spekulativ populærvitenskap, nyåndelige forestillinger og – ikke minst – konspirasjonsteorier. Bare tanken på at myndighetene "holder ting skjult for oss", og pålegger oss "unødvendige" avgifter og restriksjoner pga “den innbilte klimakrisen”, er uutholdelig. At myndighetene i USA også “holder tilbake sannheten” om hva som “egentlig” skjedde 11 september 2001, blir derfor to sider av samme sak for en paranoid konspiratoriker. Klimafornekting og 9/11 konspira er to grener på det samme store konspiratreet. I mine mange diskusjoner med konspiranoide klimafornektere er det tydelig at klima egentlig er “litt kjedelig” og at klimafornektingen gjerne brukes som “brekkstang” for å fremme disse andre, mørkere, konspirasjonsteoriene. Bruk gjerne denne hendige guiden til å finne ut hvem din konspira-venn ligner mest på. Sjekk og oppsummering i Del 4.
På YouTube finner vi, ikke overraskende, klimafornekter-videoer side om side med 911-truther-videoer.
Akkurat som på hjemmesiden til Oljekrisa.no:
Fra fritanke.no:
"Ideen om at amerikanske myndigheter selv stod bak terrorhandlingene 11. september 2001 for å kunne starte en krig i Midtøsten, eller opprette et strengere kontrollregime på hjemmebane, ser ut til å ha blitt lansert få dager etter hendelsene på nettstedet Serendipity, et høyreorientert nettsted med brodd mot alt som heter storkapital og bankvesen som siden 1996 har vært tilholdssted for alt fra klimaskepsis og holocaustbenektelse til hva som «egentlig» skjedde under bombingen av det føderale kontorbygget i Oklahoma City".“Et sted å begynne kan være det fenomenet den amerikanske forfatteren Chip Berlet har omtalt som «right woos left."
Ifølge Berlet begynte amerikansk ytre høyre et frieri til venstresiden og antikrigsbevegelsen mot slutten av 1980-tallet der målet var å få innpass med utgangspunkt i at begge var kritiske til intervensjoner i utlandet, amerikansk støtte til Israel og begrensninger på individuell frihet. Mens ytre høyres ståsted ved første øyekast hadde flere likheter med tradisjonelle venstreståsteder, var utgangspunktet selvsagt et annet ettersom det sprang ut av et ønske om å bevare et USA styrt av hvite kristne og ofte også av antisemittiske forestillinger om mektige banker som trakk i trådene og presset USA inn i kriger som langt fra var i landets egen interesse. Mange spekulerte også i om jøder stod bak den «dekadente» populærkulturen. Til tross for dette klarte enkelte grupperinger, særlig rundt nynazisten og holocaustbenekteren Willis Carto og nyfascisten Lyndon LaRouche, å få innpass i deler av den amerikanske venstresiden i tiden rundt den første krigen mot Irak i 1990-91 “[...] de samme menneskene som mener det er sannsynlig at myndighetene skjuler sannheten om terrorhandlingene 11. september, også har en større tendens til å vurdere det som sannsynlig at myndighetene skjuler informasjon om kontakt med utenomjordiske og at vaksinering av barn kan føre til autisme. Det er ikke usannsynlig at dette også kan være en del av forklaringen på at enkelte representanter for norsk venstreside de senere årene har blitt talspersoner for konspirasjonsteorier som stammer direkte fra amerikansk ytre høyre, for eksempel tidligere SV-leder Berit Ås som både har hevdet at USA selv stod bak terrorhandlingene 11. september 2001 og at vi blir utsatt fra kjemikaliesprøyting fra fly – en påstand som først ser ut til å ha blitt lansert på nettstedet The Patriot Page i 2000. På samme måte som det finnes en «paranoid tråd i amerikansk politikk» har vi en tilsvarende tradisjon i enkelte kretser for et irrasjonelt hat mot USA som ikke er det samme som å kritisere de mange problematiske sidene ved supermaktens utenrikspolitikk. Det er grunn til å tro at dette hatet har fungert som en slik grunnantagelse for enkelte og dermed disponert dem for å tro nær sagt hva som helst om dette landet, inkludert konspirasjonsteorier.”
Oljekrisa.no pusher bekmørk 911-truthisme side om side med klimafornekting:
Når ikke Oljekrisa.no er travelt opptatt med å spre klimaløgner, er det altså 911-truthisme som står på agendaen. Nederst i artikkelen linker de like så godt til den beryktede truther-siden ae911truth.org
Ingen kommentarer:
Legg inn en kommentar