Are either of these conspiracy theories true?

Question

Many who believe in climate change believe companies are suppressing information and technology to make more money doing business as usual. Many who don't believe in climate change think ecologists are just trying to steal their money and redistribute it to others.

Suppressing information was the wrong phrase. Spreading disinformation was more of what I meant.

Answer 1

Both of those conspiracy theories seem far fetched if you ask me.

I can tell you WHAT IS true:

What's the point in controlling CO2 emissions and then giving a free ride to toxic chemicals? Because countries have signed the KYOTO PROTOCOL and have passed legislation to reduce carbon output, they have been replacing CO2 emissions with HFC 23 which is 11,000 times stronger and a real toxic pollutant.

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2093816,00.html

Many of the oil companies are exited about the new "oil" product (which will be more toxic and hazardous than plane old carbon oil) that they will be manufacturing with DuPont:

Check out these carbon substitutes:

http://www2.dupont.com/Vertrel/en_US/

and

http://www.dupontrefinish.com/portal/en?page=GU-1.3.1_Current_Press_Release&category=PressReleaseCategoryOne&catid=52&catid2=5350

Many of the oil companies are on board from BP to Sunoco, the only exceptions being Exxon and Mobil. Meanwhile, Exxon Mobil (which are the only companies that have ever funded research to discredit GW by the way) have discovered reserves of African oil:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1626751,00.html

which means that if Global Warming isn't a big issue in the following years, Africa would be one of the richest continents and we would be able to solve the majority of problems of poverty and starvation within the next few years as it would be eliminated on the continent of Africa.

The only problem is, concordantly with the discovery of African oil was the discovery of Global Warming and the discovery that Africa would be the worst hit by the global warming phenomena.

Is that irony or is it a conspiracy? I don't know.

What I do know is that there are more corporate interests that want Global Warming to be true than those that don't. That it is an advantage to exploiting nations if Africa is in poverty. That most people only see the surface of a geopolitical negotiation between nations, governments, and multinational corporations and argue over things that they have seen through a peep hole without knowing the bigger picture of things.

Answer 2

A few years ago there was a policy of discrediting the science of global warming and this was being directed by some large businesses, particularly those in the oil and power industry.

Largely they used their own in-house scientists to try and refute the science of others, unable to come up with anything the policy failed spectacularly, so much so that some major oil companies even offered rewards of $10,000 plus expenses to any scientist who would speak out against global warming (I think the payments are still available).

Today, in the face of overwhelming evidence, every major oil and power company in the world acknowledges global warming as reality.

- - - - - - - - - - -

There have been claims that global warming is a hoax or has been exaggerated by scientists in order to obtain government funding. Ther problem with this is that it's untrue and the numbers put forward by the opponents of global warming don't add up and have never been substantiated.

Public and limited companies are required by law to produce accounts documenting where all their money comes from. Governments make their accounts public. You, me, anyone can access these records and see just how much money has been paid to research global warming and where it's come from.

Most research into global warming is commissioned by private companies and if scientists were looking for ways to make money they'd be working in medicine, petrochemicals, pharmacuticals etc.

Answer 3

Neither of these necessarily represents a conspiracy. A conspiracy involves the collusion of multiple partners acting in concert toward a common goal. Even assuming that either of these silly assumptions are actually valid, they could simply be the result of individual companies or ecologists acting in what they believe is their best interest. No collusion is necessary.

Secondly, companies are generally not in a position to supresse information on climate change. To do this, they would need to have ownership of the information and that is simply not the case. And while ecologists may have ownership of some of the climate change data, they are not generally the ones looking to steal money from some and redistribute it to others. This particular bit of nastiness is entirely in the realm of governments.

Answer 4

I am an Environmentalist not a politician
I believe many truths are suppressed ,for financial ,political and religious reasons .
And many truths are simple not known .

As far as money is concerned ,nobody has ever paid me anything to answer questions on behalf of Nature ,and the wages that i get for developing Eco tourism ,making some parks or talking to school kids and farmers has been minimal or no existent ,
I have made some money making gardens ,but that is hardly a political ruse
And a department of Ecology (in Mexico)for which i worked collapsed due to lack of interest .

Answer 5

The highest profile global warming deniers do seem to be consistently funded by those with an interest in the status quo [see source]. I'm not convinced they're suppressing information though - just doing their damnedest to make a small minority of scientists look like they represent the mainstream, and thereby weaken the message about global warming.

Answer 6

No, it's just a way to skew the argument. It goes like this. "A consensus believes global warming is true, so that makes it real. Anyone who disagrees is paid to suppress the data, so they can not be a part of the debate or consensus."

Of course those who believe get the big bucks from business, and political interest. However they believe that it's ok because they are right.

Remember Dr. Hansen took $250,000.00 from John Kerry to endorse his campaign. Wal-Mart give millions because they want to sell more CF Light bulbs. movies like "truth", "tomorrow" and "11th hour" make hundreds of millions.

Never believe that the "believers" are doing this just to "save the planet". There are billion$ in marketing global warming.

Answer 7

No, they aren't and this is coming from a conspiracy theorist who firmly believes that Bill Clinton murdered over 100 people, that the government is building prison camps, that the OKC bombing was the doing of the government and that the NWO will someday control the world.

Answer 8

Watch Discovery Channel were in a lot of trouble. 600 million yrs using ice this has never ever happen in the history. dude get yourself educated. They said the Polar bear could die in 20 yrs. become a straight A+ student to help your future and your loved ones. this is no BS dude it here now! All man made.

Answer 9

I had to re-read the answer given by Harry many times and I find it very disturbing if what he says is true. But I think Africa will come up even without this oil business. They will be sigining a paper with the devil if they do this oil business with US.

Answer 10

who knows
???
it is
forever
a
...
that's rite
a
...
...
mystery!
oooo