Is the sky falling, after all, because Exxon was "alarmist" decades ago in suggesting that global warming might become "catastrophic"?

The warmist logic is always poor. They seem to think that scientists are paragons of virtue who always tell the truth and do wonderful work - except for the ones they disagree with. Still the Kochs must be really good business men.

Their relatively small contribution to the climate debate has caused the whole movement to falter despite much more money being spent on the opposite point of view. http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.c... See page 5 for some of the funds available to the warmies. We have the Grantham Institute in the UK.

It is like the Heartland Institute except that it only deals in climate issues. It is funded by a billionaire hedge fund manager, Jeremy Grantham. It employs a terrier called Bob Ward who manages to get himself on the TV and in the papers at every opportunity.

The BBC does not like giving non-experts air time. That is why they don't like Nigel Lawson an ex-Chancellor of the Excequor (i.e. Chief finance minister in government).

Bob's OK though, he is on-message. Although he knows little about the science and nothing about finances or policy. Anyone spot the bias?

Your argument suggests that it you have millions of gallons of pure water and you put a drop of poison into it then there should be no effect. Unfortunately this is like much of the Koch brothers arguments, only a common assumption and not based upon a careful empirical examination. We also have to know the nature and eventual concentration of the poison.

Some poisons are potent in very small dosages. We have to know the nature of the social contamination to see its likely effect. Media properly placed is also more like a biological poison that actually multiplies.

The right placement and the right lies can be quite effective. You only have to witness Hitlers propaganda prior to WWII to see how lies can sweep a nation. When viewed this way it is surprising that the Koch propaganda machine has not been more effective considering the billions spent.

But what is effective is a matter of perspective as well. Denier propaganda from energy suppliers does not have to be 100% effective. Fossil fuel suppliers have product in the ground.

Alternatives of renewable energy will reduce the profits of those resources in the short term. Therefore if the goal is to delay widespread adoption of renewable energy the propaganda machine is very effective. The US is now 30 years behind Europe in Offshore Wind energy generation.

Any offshore wind generation in the US will now be using European Technology and those profits will be going to European Companies and they want to use trained European workers to do the jobs. (There is enough offshore wind energy to power the US electric grid 4 times over. The build out could supply millions of jobs and this industry is in direct competition to the Koch coal operations.).

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.