-1

Conservative groups spend up to $1bn a year to fight action on climate change | Environment | theguardian.com

Posted by TruthFreedom1 10 years, 10 months ago to Government
41 comments | Share | Flag

This is an interesting article on the counter movement on climate change. The problem we face in Canada is government cuts to funding of NGOs and actually calling environmental Groups terrorists. They always seem to point out that some organizations in the States are sending money to help the environmentalists fight for responsible resource extraction while they use our tax dollars and millions from Corporations to fight back. Those funds from organizations States side and other places only help balance the playing field. Nothing but lying scammers.
SOURCE URL: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/20/conservative-groups-1bn-against-climate-change


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by Lucky 10 years, 10 months ago
    Big contributors to climate change alarmism:
    Ted Turner. Pew Foundation (oil money). George Soros. Richard Branson. All the big oil companies. Greenpeace (try to find out from their accounts where the money comes from). Sierra Club. GE. the big universities. and many many others. The biggest source is .. me and probably you as well via government.
    The amount of money going into alarmism is vastly more than that amount going into skepticism.

    Consider the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it is about 380 parts per million.

    Climate change alarmism gets more than one million for every 380 that skepticism gets. Of the 380, it is all voluntary, of the one million most is taken without consent by taxation.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Lucky 10 years, 10 months ago
      Caution, long boring posting, you do not have to read it.

      A question that sociologists will ask- how was an exaggerated scare, based on so little evidence, poor reasoning and petty namecalling, kept alive for two whole decades? The answer is, it is weight of money. Whose money? Need you ask? Yours for the most part.
      Source 1- //joannenova.com.au/2011/10/map-the-climate-change-scare-machine-the-perpetual-self-feeding-cycle-of-alarm/

      Examples: on one side the $23M from Exxon has wide publicity. There are as well:
      CATO $20.4M pa total revenue
      AEI $28.8M pa "
      Heartland $7.7M pa "
      Koch donated $25 thousand to Heartland in 2011 earmarked for a health care project.

      On the other side
      Natural Resources Defense Council $95.4M pa revenue
      World Wildlife Fund $238.5M pa " .
      Exxon gave more than 20 times as much for a single renewables research project than it did to skeptics.
      Royal Dutch Shell is a very big and regular contributor (amount secret), including to Greenpeace. (terrorists endanger Russian oil rigs, or protection money?)
      Other big oil tho' vastly outdone by Big Government.
      US government. $79 billion plus.
      and many many more.
      The chart with money flow numbers is here.
      source 2- //jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/artwork/mudslinger-map/climate-scare-machine.pdf

      Data of July 2013 Source 3
      //theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/07/the-big-lie-sceptics-funded-by-big-oil.html

      Al Gore sold a TV network for $xxM profit to oil state Qatar's Al Jazeera- "a Qatar government outlet that ran every terrorist video and hates America." Al Gore is a receiver rather than source of money, but note the big source for him. Similarly, Dana Nuccitelli, notorious alarmist blogger and contributor to (UN)Skeptical Science is paid by big oil.
      Source 4- //www.climatedepot.com/2013/07/24/the-big-lie-sceptics-funded-by-big-oil-no-the-alarmists-are/
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
        Well... You and H have worn me out... I am getting tired of the argument now. In leaving the discussion. We will as I told H. just have to be civil and agree that we disagree on these issues. I still believe in Liberty, a Free Market, and my right as an individual to have my own opinions on matter. No offense was ever taken and none was ever intended:
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
      The Flip side: https://www.commondreams.org/headline/20... Exxon, Koch Brothers Foundation all fund huge the CCCM, The Pew Foundation was started by a charitable Trust arranged by the surviving children of the founder of Sun Oil . They do not actively fund the organization. George Soros and Richard Branson are wealthy Philanthropists who have contributed a lot to humanitarian work around the world and yes... That includes raising awareness about environmental issues... Not just Global Climate issues. Prove to me a big oil firm exists that actively promotes climate change as being real?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
      Provide the source Lucky. If you do I will give it serious consideration.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Lucky 10 years, 10 months ago
        But it is your claim that needs support.. The source quoted says: 'The expansive misinformation campaign behind climate change denial is increasingly being funded in the dark,"
        That is, they don't know. Whereas you can see the published material of National Geographic, Scientific American, New Scientist -who put out propaganda, and Penn State U, and Harvard who give massive support. The $20m from ExxonMobil, once, 6 (?) years ago, is small change compared with what they give to climate alarmism. The accounts of say Heartland are available - a million a year and a few staff. Nothing compared with the staff of just any US state environment department. Pew and Soros money (oil and currency speculation) is noble but less money from Koch is evil apparently, and government money extracted by force (tax) is a thousand times greater.
        The big corporates do contribute big, 95% of it goes to one side, to the side that gives back, and more, in contracts for useless products and studies.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 10 months ago
    truth, you are using phrases that smack of big government support. "NGO," "responsible resource extraction," "government cuts"....
    I would imagine libertarian organizations are also spending money to fight "action" by governments for belief-based "climate change." I guess we are no longer just calling it warming. Have you read Atlas Shrugged?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
      Thanks khalling.
      It does smack of big government. Our so called conservative government is actually a far right group of extremists (my opinion). You can call it what you want... Climate Change or Global Warming. It all means the same thing to me. All fueled by money and greed. That old saying is true. 'Money corrupts but power and money corrupt absolutely." Never read any of her books but certainly plan to read Atlas Shrugged as soon as I get my hands on a copy. I'm hoping it will help me understand the Libertarian way of thinking. I've been told it will.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 10 months ago
        "There are hidden contradictions in the minds of people who "love Nature" while deploring the "artificialities" with which "Man has spoiled 'Nature.'" The obvious contradiction lies in their choice of words, which imply that Man and his artifacts are not part of "Nature" — but beavers and their dams are. But the contradictions go deeper than this prima-facie absurdity. In declaring his love for a beaver dam (erected by beavers for beavers' purposes) and his hatred for dams erected by men (for the purposes of men) the Naturist reveals his hatred for his own race — i.e., his own self-hatred.
        In the case of "Naturists" such self-hatred is understandable; they are such a sorry lot. But hatred is too strong an emotion to feel toward them; pity and contempt are the most they rate.
        As for me, willy-nilly I am a man, not a beaver, and H. sapiens is the only race I have or can have. Fortunately for me, I like being part of a race made up of men and women — it strikes me as a fine arrangement — and perfectly "natural" Believe it or not, there were "Naturists" who opposed the first flight to old Earth's Moon as being "unnatural" and a "despoiling of Nature." - Robert A. Heinlein

        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
          There are extremists within every ideology. I believe that nature is here for our benefit and as such we should be responsible in how we interact with it. I am not against using earth resources; where the heck would we be without them or the technology which allows us to interact at the blink of an eye or refine those resources.... I agree with Heinlein. Extremists exist everywhere... I am not one. I would classify myself as a moderate looking for a debate with other open minded individuals about the issues which concern me.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by khalling 10 years, 10 months ago
        it will only help you understand the Objectivist way of thinking-it is a novel outlining Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism. Have you seen the movies AS I and ASII?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • -1
        Posted by Boborobdos 10 years, 10 months ago
        "as I get my hands on a copy"

        Try Audible Books. Listening to it in the car is much more interesting than most of the blather from talk radio where if they want you to have an opinion they will beat it into you.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by Boborobdos 10 years, 10 months ago
          Ah, let's see... I'm told I'm being beaten up for being personal, etc. Yet I state a pleasant alternative reading or listening to talk radio and guess what! Censorship!

          Yup, looks to me like an organized attack.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Boborobdos 10 years, 10 months ago
      Actually climate change isn't "belief based." It is science based.

      You declare you don't like the government but can you deny anything here?: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 10 months ago
        The climate change hoax must be faith based because as the evidence against it continues to pile up, the more adamant the acolytes become.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • -1
        Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
        Nope! But remember if you read my profile I am studying environmental science. I am a believer in Global Warming or Climate Change... It doesn't matter what you call it. It exists. In Canada our government is decimating groups who are fighting climate change, calling them terrorists and decimating our country with a dig baby dig mentality. Of all the industrialized countries Canada has the worst environmental record despite the spin you may get about it in the States. Government (Supposedly Conservative) has decimated environmental protections, closed science libraries and research centers, muzzled scientists and ministries so they can't speak to the media without vetting. They are slamming all the doors to ensure their dig baby dig agenda goes through. I agree climate change is real. Who would ever think that climate change is "belief based"?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 10 months ago
          Anyone who's looked at the climate record and realized that weather doesn't equal climate.

          You might try studying a real science, for a change.

          Prove that conservatives have muzzled scientists?
          And how have we managed to decimate environmental protections, when there's more environmental regulation than ever, and the EPA spreads its tentacles into every facet of civilization.

          You work for the SSI, don't you? C'mon... admit it...

          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Boborobdos 10 years, 10 months ago
            So, who is going to down check Hiraghm for a personal attack accusing me of working someplace that is obviously perceived negatively around here?

            Sadly global warming is real.

            Oh, proof on muzzling!

            "In a scathing piece published Sunday, the newspaper argues Harper Conservatives have tried to restrict publicly financed scientists from sharing information with the public, particularly research into climate change and "anything to do with Alberta tar sands — source of the diluted bitumen that would flow through the controversial Keystone XL pipeline."

            That's from the NY Times: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/09/23/...
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
            You people keep forgetting I am Canadian. No disrespect but you are not the center of the universe. In Canada we have muzzled scientists.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 10 months ago
              I haven't forgotten for a moment.

              We were the center of the universe (which explains why the world has gone downhill since)... and God willing, we will be again.

              In Canada you may well have muzzled the scientists. But in Canada... you have no conservatives.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
                Your funny!
                I am sorry that you are a denier of climate change.
                1. Science has proven that over the life of the planet that CO2 atmospheric level correlate with temp. rise.
                2. The increase in extreme weather events are a result in changing Jet steam patterns which DO effect weather.
                3. The change in the jet stream is a result of global warming and the melting sea ice in OUR Arctic.
                How are you enjoying your winter State side so far Hiraghm.
                You are correct. We Have no more Conservatives... We have an Oligarchy and it sucks.We are moving toward Fascism quicker than the States.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
      khalling.
      I always have difficulty defining Libertarianism and the definition has changed over time. Traditionally I consider Right to be Pro-State and left to be Pro-choice. I consider myself left by more than a little. The less government influence in my life the better. I just wanted to clarify this as when people use the word Libertarian I always wonder what their personal view of that is.
      http://www.la-articles.org.uk/pc.htm
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 10 months ago
        "Traditionally I consider Right to be Pro-State and left to be Pro-choice."

        Why am I not surprised you have it exactly backwards?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Scatghadi 10 years, 10 months ago
    Truth - to say that Right is "Pro State" and Left is "Pro Choice" is Bass Ackwards.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
      So the question is... perhaps you can shed some light Scatghadi... If I want less government influence upon my personal self and much more say and transparency on property matters. What does that make me?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Scatghadi 10 years, 10 months ago
        I don't much like to "label" people or groups of people; so please forgive me if I don't try to apply one in this case. Especially since I share some of your confusion in the matter.

        Allow me simply to offer a suggestion that has helped me to better define the "framework" I now use to provide me some context in matters of policy, politics, and general approaches concerning where rights start and end for individuals.

        Read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged". Then read Mark Levine's "Liberty and Tyranny" reverse the order if you need to. Levine's work in quickly consumed but a must read.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
      The left-wing views are overwhelmingly about state-control in property matters with choice in personal matters, and that right is the opposite. This is what sorts out the modern left and right. I find it all confusing sometimes which explains my error in defining the differences. For myself, I wish personal pro choice but that the current system of government allowed more debate, transparency and discussion concerning policy, and that policy reflected decisions which are pro health and not necessarily pro money. Pipe dreaming...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Boborobdos 10 years, 10 months ago
        Posted: " and that right is the opposite."

        Really? How personal is a woman's choice about continuing an unwanted pregnancy? The right wants to deny that control.

        How personal is a person's choice about end of life issues and getting help in all aspects of it from their doctor? Want to die? Can't in all but Oregon right now.

        Want to not feel pain, better watch out for government controls from the right. Lots of drugs pretty much aren't allowed.


        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
          Re-read the post... I think you misunderstood me. First I said "state-control in property matters with choice in personal matters." Meaning a woman has the right to choose as is the case here in Canada, same as gay marriage. I am pro choice including end of life decisions. (Thats a very personal one for me) it is not allowed anywhere in Canada. I am left and believe in personal choice on all matters which affect me and I am also against big non-transparent government.
          Did I misunderstand you or did you misunderstand me? Remember I am a Canadian and I think our cultural and government differences may give us different views on what left and right traditionally mean. No offense intended.

          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Boborobdos 10 years, 10 months ago
            Yes, here in America the right wing often screws with personal choice.

            The left is often perceived to want government interference in business.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
              Thanks for the clarifying that. Both left and right are changing fast. Its hard to keep track because they are no longer what we traditionally (As in my parents generation) thought of as left and right. Corporate interference, lobbying (which should be outlawed in my mind) and privately run financial conglomerates dictate the agenda now. It no longer has much at all to do with political ideologies.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by Boborobdos 10 years, 10 months ago
                Posted: "It no longer has much at all to do with political ideologies."

                Absolutely true. In ancient Egypt it was the Pharos who ruled. In Rome the Senate. In the middle and dark ages it was religion. During the emergence after that it was the Royals.

                In America it started with the farmers, moved onto the Robber Barons, and eventually Corportracy.

                Today it's the 1% elate calling the shots hiding behind religion and the Republican party. .
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo