Conservative groups spend up to $1bn a year to fight action on climate change | Environment | theguardian.com
Posted by TruthFreedom1 10 years, 4 months ago to Government
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.
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.
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/
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
Yup, looks to me like an organized attack.
You declare you don't like the government but can you deny anything here?: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
Sheesh, how can some be so narrow minded?
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...
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/...
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.
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.
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
Why am I not surprised you have it exactly backwards?
I've listed them several times before Hiraghm.
Abortion, end of life issues... Remember?
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.
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.
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.
The left is often perceived to want government interference in business.
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. .