Conservative groups spend up to $1bn a year to fight action on climate change | Environment | theguardian.com
Posted by TruthFreedom1 11 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.
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.
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.
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?
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. .
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.
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.
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
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/...
Sheesh, how can some be so narrow minded?
I've listed them several times before Hiraghm.
Abortion, end of life issues... Remember?
Yup, looks to me like an organized attack.
The left is often perceived to want government interference in business.
Load more comments...