'Preventing government imposed reductions in the use of fossil fuels is not something that is merely in the narrow self-interest of the oil and coal industries. Rather it is in the self-interest of the hundreds of millions of average people who vitally depend on the products of these industries'
Thomas: 'There are plenty of ways to check Puls’ conclusions, including climatedepot.com, which provides links to the papers and work of climatologists and other scientists who take a decidedly different position from that of the climate change crowd. Some note the pressure placed on them to conform to the “faith” in order to receive government subsidies and donations from foundations and wealthy individuals'
In a note to the press, the authors vow that "we never advocate lying on climate change." But as Lusk noted in an earlier comment on the paper, the authors constructed "a mathematical model to suggest that exaggerating consequences can have positive impacts by getting people to 'do the right thing.'" There's also this statement: "Our key result — that overpessimism alleviates the underparticipation problem — implies that the propaganda of climate skepticism may be detrimental to the society." So maybe they would "never advocate lying on climate change," yet they approve of using propaganda and silencing or marginalizing skeptics?