VIDEO: BBC Reveals ‘Direct Link’ Between Tobacco Companies And Global Warming Deniers
Filed Under: Global Warming
By on Sep 21st, 2006 at 1:41 pm
VIDEO: BBC Reveals ‘Direct Link’ Between Tobacco Companies And Global Warming Deniers
In a segment on Newsnight yesterday, the BBC revealed a “direct link between the tobacco companies and the claim that climate change isn’t happening.” In 1993 Philip Morris set up a “grass roots coaltion” to “cast doubt on studies showing that second-hand tobacco smoke is dangerous for health.” In order not to raise suspicion that the company was involved, Philip Morris decided to “‘link the tobacco issue with other more politically correct products’ and campaign on issues like global warming.”
The result was the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, which was “one of the first organizations to throw a smokescreen over global warming.” Watch it:
We’ve posted the full transcript here.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
31 Responses to “VIDEO: BBC Reveals ‘Direct Link’ Between Tobacco Companies And Global Warming Deniers”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Site
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
Reports
In depth studies on select topics
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Beck
Big Oil
Bolton
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Feith
Fox News
GI Bill
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Hagee
Health Care
Immigration
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
McCain
McClellan
Media
Military
O'Hanlon
O'Reilly
Obama
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Rove
Sports
Surveillance
Terrorism
Torture
Veterans
Wiretapping
Women's Rights
ArchivesBlog Roll
Maybe I did make up the Wal-Mart story. huh…
September 21st, 2006 at 1:42 pm“Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public.”
http://www.smokefree.net/ doc-alert/ messages/ 247128.html
September 21st, 2006 at 1:50 pmSomeone please tell me again why we should believe these fraudulent “grassroots” organizations funded by Big Oil and Big Tobacco?
And yet we still see the occassional defender of Big Oil saying that NASA scientists are really the ones with a hidden agenda, based on no evidence whatsoever.
Now who exactly is the barking moonbat? Clearly not the liberals on this issue.
September 21st, 2006 at 1:54 pmNothing?
September 21st, 2006 at 2:03 pmSo they’re the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition? The ASS Coalition? Sounds about right.
September 21st, 2006 at 2:03 pmRob, did you mean this?
“For Wal-Mart, the lower generic drug prices could blunt criticism of its health care coverage and prove a boon to business. Wal-Mart’s chief executive, H. Lee Scott Jr., has identified the chain’s pharmacy business as an area that needs improvement, and $4 generic drugs could turn the chain into a destination for those seeking the best prices on prescriptions.”
A good business decision, cloaked as a humanitarian effort. Why do you think it is so important? If I address you, on this, will you quit quatting and trotting all over the threads?
September 21st, 2006 at 2:10 pmNow who exactly is the barking moonbat? Clearly not the liberals on this issue.
Comment by ReadyForChange — September 21, 2006 @ 1:54 pm
Well, I think it is clear who the barking moonbats are around here: the regulars such as Seixxon, Hendler, and Hippie, and the occasional “new” participant such as Honey Dipper, who, based on yesterday’s tour de force of pro-Exxon progaganda no doubt is employed by one of their public relations firms.
If you want to see the ultimate confluence of corporate interests fighting the scientific truth, wander over to junkscience.com. The founder of this site, Steven Milloy, is an inveterate corporate obfuscator with a long history of lobbying for the tobacco companies. It doesn’t take long to recognize that the only “junk” science referred to by the site is stuff that is likely to influence regulation: global warming, environmental waste, second-hand smoke, unhealthy food additives, obesity, etc. Milloy is a well-established libertarian who will distort and lie about anything and everything to fight any regulation, no matter how sensible, and he has oodles of corporate backing to do it.
Speaking of junk science, John Stossel is a complete idiot.
September 21st, 2006 at 2:14 pmSorry didn’t mean to post 3 times. TP seemed to be rejecting it, then suddenly posted all three.
September 21st, 2006 at 2:22 pmActually I meant this:
where it will sell generic prescription drugs for $4 for a 30-day supply
The plan is available to its employees and customers, including those without insurance.
Wal-Mart is taking this step so our customers and associates can get the medicines they need at a cost they can afford
generic drugs would not be sold at a loss to entice customers into the stores
Wal-Mart’s recent moves included relaxing eligibility requirements for its part-time employees who want health insurance, and extending coverage for the first time to the children of those employees. Part-time employees, who had to work for Wal-Mart for two years to qualify, now have to work at the company for one year. This year, Wal-Mart also expanded a trial run of in-store clinics, aimed at providing lower cost non-emergency health care to the public.
Last October, Wal-Mart offered a new lower-premium insurance aimed at getting more of its work force on company plans
In other news: “Being business savy people and companies can make a profit and feel like they are doing things right”
Previous thread comment by dlet
September 21st, 2006 at 2:24 pmLast October, Wal-Mart offered a new lower-premium insurance aimed at getting more of its work force on company plans
Refresh my memory, Rob. How long has Wal-Mart been in business? And if this ends up losing money for Wal-Mart, they’ll get a huge write-off.
Do you work for corporate Wal-Mart, Rob? From your tone, it sounds like it.
September 21st, 2006 at 2:30 pmWhat should be printed behind a box of cigarette is this: Warning: Corporations and the oil industry are hazardous it to your health.
September 21st, 2006 at 2:30 pmRob, are they also going to extend this policy to their suppliers’ workers in other countries?
Now THAT would be a humanitarian effort!
Or will these workers continue to labor in unsafe conditions for low wages, with no health insurance and no access to these discounted drugs? All to shave a couple bucks off the price of a toaster-oven? Let’s not start with the hossannas just yet.
September 21st, 2006 at 2:40 pmSpin the wheel again - Rumsfeld, Global Warming, Culture of Corruption …
Step right up, who will be the lucky winnuh?
You start out with valid concerns, but your rehashing of the same old thing just make voters numb or worse, repulsed, by your shrill cries.
September 21st, 2006 at 2:44 pmThis site wants you to equate tobacco companies and oil companies. The connection is a $30,000 donation to an organization that the tobacco company set up. Of course, exxon has an interest in combating what it believes is excessive regulation on its industry. My question: what difference does it make that the organization was set up by a tobacco company?
September 21st, 2006 at 2:51 pm#14
September 21st, 2006 at 3:35 pmLet me spell it out for you. Tobacco companies lied about their product being safe when they knew it wasn’t. They used a FAKE scientific group(s) that they started to promote these lies. This FAKE scientific group(s) are using the falsifying techniques to cast doubt on global warming. Same FAKE scientific groups. Lies Lies Lies. Come on you can make the connection…come on….you can do it……come on……
So Hendler suggests that we stop talking about all the things gone wrong in this country. He suggests that we just give up. We don’t need no stinkin’ democracy! Just suck it up, quit whining, and let the corporate fascists ruin our lives and our planet. That is all Hendler has to say right now.
Shut up, Hendler.
September 21st, 2006 at 3:43 pm#16. well, you may want to believe and the article may lead you to believe they are all the same, but the only connection, so far, is the organization exxon donated $30,000 to was set up by philip-morris. Furthermore, is it only possible that corporations falsify information for their purposes and environmental groups are incapable of falsification to further their own agenda?
September 21st, 2006 at 4:22 pmSlightly off topic, but here’s another oil company and how it spends some of its money:
“CITGO Petroleum, the U.S. subsidiary of Venezuela’s state-owned oil company, has earmarked 25 million gallons of fuel for low-income New York residents this year at 40% off the wholesale market price.
That’s enough fuel to heat 70,000 apartments, covering 200,000 New Yorkers, for the entire winter.”
September 21st, 2006 at 4:32 pm[…] Think Progress […]
September 21st, 2006 at 5:29 pm#16. well, you may want to believe and the article may lead you to believe they are all the same, but the only connection, so far, is the organization exxon donated $30,000 to was set up by philip-morris. Furthermore, is it only possible that corporations falsify information for their purposes and environmental groups are incapable of falsification to further their own agenda?
Comment by paul — September 21, 2006 @ 4:22 pm
Paul, do you think it is just a coincidence that the very well-funded junkscience.com web site specifically focuses its disinformation campaign on global warming and second-hand tobacco smoke? Do you think there is just $30K behind this web site? Milloy has been tied to both the tobacco companies and Exxon-Mobil (via the notorious George C. Marshall Institute). Are you naive?
September 21st, 2006 at 5:41 pmMy guess is that Steve “Piece of Junk” Milloy will be found right there in the thick of things.
He’s about as “green” as you can be, if it’s the colour on the payola he’s scamming industry for to promote his (and their) whacked ’science’….
Cheers,
September 21st, 2006 at 5:47 pm#7 Real Scientist:
Aha. You beat me to it. I had e-mail conversations with Milloy in the early ’90s on some of this stuff, and he truly is, amongst other things, an eedjit concerning statistics. And his scientific background is essentially nil as well….
But he’s been at this game a long time.
Cheers,
September 21st, 2006 at 5:50 pmbtru,
Let’s have a standing date here on this site the day after the general election, so that I can help you cope with why and how you progs blew yet another election - I speak slowly, so you can take at least some of it in.
September 21st, 2006 at 6:03 pmWhat’s next from the PCP induced thinkers. Farting cause global warming?
September 21st, 2006 at 6:10 pm“I speak slowly, so you can take at least some of it in.
Comment by Jason+M.+Hendler — September 21, 2006 @ ”
Poor Jason, he still has to talk while he types…
September 21st, 2006 at 6:39 pmAnother reason why I am glad that I don’t smoke.
September 21st, 2006 at 8:48 pm[…] “Are brands more powerful than governments?” A post on the ‘Think Progress’ website shows a segment from a recent BBC report that revealed a “direct link between the tobacco companies and the claim that climate change isn’t happening.†In 1993 Philip Morris set up a “grass roots coaltion†to “cast doubt on studies showing that second-hand tobacco smoke is dangerous for health.†In order not to raise suspicion that the company was involved, Philip Morris decided to “‘link the tobacco issue with other more politically correct products’ and campaign on issues like global warming.†The result was the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), which was the first and most important of the corporate-funded organisations denying that climate change is taking place. It has done more damage to the campaign to halt it than any other body. An article on Tobacco.org reports that: “Between 2000 and 2002 it received $30,000 from Exxon. The website it has financed - JunkScience.com - has been the main entrepot for almost every kind of climate-change denial that has found its way into the mainstream press.” The first question that opened the long and fruitful day at the Table of Free Voices seems even more relevant to me upon reading this story: “Are brands more powerful than governments?” donated by the Barcelona Forum. One of the 112 answers to this question comes from marine biologist and executive director of ANAI Benson Venegas: “Unfortunately, this is truth. The world is owned and controlled by multinational corporation. People perception is also part of this idea that people think that brands deliver immediate benefits while government take time to satisfy their needs. (….) I think at this point we need to create possibilities where we can try and get a balance of power between brands and government as well.” There are 111 more answers to this question. We invite you to use the information in our living library and read and listen to more answers. […]
September 22nd, 2006 at 7:15 amAnd before you get all ‘republican’ on exit polling data - it’s quite scientific.
Our own government uses it internationally as a benchmark.
Do some research on its world wide usage before you go hardcore.
Keep an open mind.
Then realize how many on your side saw the 2004 election.
To them it was an act of patriotism ‘for the war and for our security’.
Many men - some you probably served with - would gladly throw an election in that state of mind.
It’s easy to justify undermining a democracy for reasons of ’security’.
It’s harder to allow yourself to lose to the will of the people when you feel that way.
Many people on the right operate from a place of moral intention.
But from that place, they do the most evil.
It is the very risk of hubris in the human existence.
It’s also a core trait of the far right…
I just wanted to address a couple other things you said. I definitely understand the scientific nature of the exit polls, it is one of the things that had me concerned. Another thing I do know is that it has been wrong before, very seldom, but it’s been done. What I didn’t know is the odds you gave, they are pretty insane.
September 22nd, 2006 at 8:44 amKnowing how you feel about offending people, I would ask that you be wary of what you said about the “people I served with”. Honor above all else is not just a code, it’s our way of life. There is no honor in stealing an election. Again, I’m not saying it’s not possible, there are bad apples in every bunch, I can just promise you it would be none of the men in my unit.
Another thing before I forget, I heard that the governor of Pennsylvania didn’t let military personnel on active duty, vote in 2004? Did you hear that too, or was that another repub rumor?
I remember a conversation I had with my grandfather before the election, he said “Jason, I just don’t see bush getting enough votes to win. I hate to call it in advance, but all the signs I see say it’s Kerry’s”
tto him I replied “Grandpa that’s fine, if your guy wins I have no problem saying hail to the chief.” My point was simply that it mattered to me who won, but I wasn’t going to let it change my life forever. I’m sure most of the men I served with, felt the same way.
I’m also sorry that maybeyou and I got off on the wrong foot. I probably got defensive because I felt like you were on the offensive. I can say mean and nasty things when I have to, but believe me it’s not because I want to.
Have a great day and I hope these posts provide some food for thought.
BTW: upon rereading my last post, insane is not a good term to cover what I meant, maybe astronomical would be better…
September 22nd, 2006 at 2:58 pm[…] Go figure! Apparently the same assholes that wanted you to believe cigarettes are health, want you to believe that global warming isn’t actually happening. BBC has a report. […]
September 22nd, 2006 at 3:07 pm[…] That shouldn’t be hard to do, as the oil companies have been spending millions to disprove man-made global warming for years, using the same tactics as the tobacco companies used to convince people smoking is good for you. Chrysler has gone so far as to criticize European views of global warming, describing climate change as “way, way in the future, with a high degree of uncertainty.” […]
January 11th, 2007 at 5:11 pm