It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Co-founder of Greenpeace: Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic

page: 3
30
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Patrick Moore is not a climatologist. He's also not exactly co-founder of Greenpeace.

He is a paid lobbyist and shill for a range of industries. Personally, I've never been a huge fan of Greenpeace but I'm less of a fan of corporate shills for the likes of Monsanto, DuPont, Philip Morris/Kraft, etc.

Doesn't it set off alarm bells in anyone else's head that this guy is paid for his opinions by companies and industry organizations ranging from those in biotech and chemical manufacture to mining, logging and energy production? One man, 100 paid for pro-corporate opinions.

The OP even points out what he gets paid for...


This article raises some good points, most of which we have all heard before. Please read the entire article!

I find it interesting that the writer of the article is Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace and a known environmentalist with legitimate credentials.


... and it's not because he has something new to add, because let's face it, he's just regurgitating the opinions of a small set of industry scientists who could also often be characterized as shills. It's because they can claim he's a "known environmentalist" and name drop Greenpeace and that's supposed to add legitimacy to the positions he's paid to support.
edit on 2015-3-21 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

First , I like to include a little humor in my post designed to get someone to smile. To make light . Second , no as someone that "was around" then , those revelations were earth ending scenarios and very much the topic of the world at the time. Of course , back then I was a member of the tree-hugging hippie style in a major way . I had a tendency to hate everything that could possibly hurt the world. The endgame for those scenarios :

Pollution and the coming Ice Age : companies were fined heavily before the regulations were in place , and then fined heavily if they did not comply - The cost of manufacturing went up so high , we basically caused most of these companies to relocate to other countries (hey , you deal with the pollution , we continue to live the good life).

Propellants and the hole in the Ozone layer: Once the propellant and freon manufacturers were fined heavily , then told they had to change their formula (once this was done , the government put a much higher tax on those products leading to skyrocketing costs for consumers) the danger faded into oblivion. Gee , money to the government can cure world problems in nature ? Is the hole still there -yep. Is it the same as it has ever been -yep

After living through those periods in time , I am concerned (rightfully so , that all this is not to cure the issue , merely for the government to rake in more money) And as most people absolutely jumped in to these head first just because someone said so I would like for them to think first and foremost. Do not just look at a chart and say , wow this is real. Think for yourself. This world is a huge , and I do mean huge ball of rock and water .



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: here4this
a reply to: Grimpachi

First , I like to include a little humor in my post designed to get someone to smile. To make light . Second , no as someone that "was around" then , those revelations were earth ending scenarios and very much the topic of the world at the time. Of course , back then I was a member of the tree-hugging hippie style in a major way . I had a tendency to hate everything that could possibly hurt the world. The endgame for those scenarios :

Pollution and the coming Ice Age : companies were fined heavily before the regulations were in place , and then fined heavily if they did not comply - The cost of manufacturing went up so high , we basically caused most of these companies to relocate to other countries (hey , you deal with the pollution , we continue to live the good life).

Propellants and the hole in the Ozone layer: Once the propellant and freon manufacturers were fined heavily , then told they had to change their formula (once this was done , the government put a much higher tax on those products leading to skyrocketing costs for consumers) the danger faded into oblivion. Gee , money to the government can cure world problems in nature ? Is the hole still there -yep. Is it the same as it has ever been -yep

After living through those periods in time , I am concerned (rightfully so , that all this is not to cure the issue , merely for the government to rake in more money) And as most people absolutely jumped in to these head first just because someone said so I would like for them to think first and foremost. Do not just look at a chart and say , wow this is real. Think for yourself. This world is a huge , and I do mean huge ball of rock and water .



Thank you for your comments, we really need experienced people to come out of the woodwork to set straight the severely distorted perceptions about the benefits of big government and its burdensome regulatory drag and/or blockage.


edit on 21-3-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: here4this

The only thing you got right in that entire post was as I had already said the "ice age" papers made headlines.


Just because it was talked about and re-printed does not mean it was the belief of the scientific community.

It does mean that even back then the populace sensualized the crackpots while ignoring global scientific consensus.




Is the hole still there -yep. Is it the same as it has ever been -yep


Nope.

Please start researching your claims. before posting because it seems you are just going by memory which is not serving you well at all.





posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Memory versus websites ? Websites 30-40 years later ? Thanks for that laugh



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: here4this

I am laughing as well, but I am sure it is for different reasons.



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp
What I have been attempting to get across with these posts , is not to sway ANYONE's beliefs. However , people will lie , cheat , and steal to further their own agendas and ambitions . I used to live a life where I believed some of the above and more , because mankind was a hateful destroying race . Then I grew up. I realized with advancements to help the populace would come with certain risks. Look at cellphones. There is a lot of research on cellphone usage leading to brain cancer and tumors. Do we still use cellphones ? Yes. Partially due to the ongoing research . Now , if it was a well published fact , would I continue to use one ? NO. (and as an afterthought I have severely limited my usage) . See , I do look at both sides of any debate. DO i make up my mind one way or another ? No. Do i look at all facts ? Yes. However , I have to "toss out" certain facts that have been "altered" to adjust for anything . Readings , facts , are just that pure and simple. They do not need to be changed.



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 01:14 PM
link   
"At least five major ice ages have occurred throughout Earth’s history: the earliest was over 2 billion years ago, and the most recent one began approximately 3 million years ago and continues today (yes, we live in an ice age!).

Currently, we are in a warm interglacial that began about 11,000 years ago. The last period of glaciation, which is often informally called the “Ice Age,” peaked about 20,000 years ago. At that time, the world was on average probably about 10°F (5°C) colder than today, and locally as much as 40°F (22°C) colder."

geology.utah.gov...

As it seems no one denies there have been prior ice ages and global temperature changes , what exactly are we trying to accomplish? I think the elephant in the room is the reality the earth will go through her cycles with or without us. Keeping our environment cleaner is certainly a benefit ,however, even if I take every precaution to live a healthy lifestyle I still will never beat the inevitable outcome! Not possible.



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
I wonder did you find any scandals such as Heartlands with tobacco?

If you did I would be inclined to think they are just would be dirty lying filth that can't be trusted to be truthful on any level just like Heartland. So that is where I set the bar at can it be met?


What I found was that Phillip Morris had contracted Heartland to investigate the link on second hand smoke and cancer... and paid them somewhere between $100,000 and $500,000 over the years to do so. So I think it is pretty safe to say that the $75+ MILLION in dirty money paid to green-politicians and propaganda outlets in just one year by Steyer has set a bar just a bit higher than this tobacco boogeyman you're trying to use to discredit Heartland.

Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on incriminating facts? If they need to be manufactured or forged, are they still incriminating? What if a person, let's pick a name out of thin air here... say someone named, oh, I dunno.... Peter Gleick say Peter Gleick were to produce a treasure trove of damning evidence against Heartland Institute, hand it over to the media anonymously, and claim he was a Heartland "insider". Let's also assume that half of this illegally obtained "evidence" was legitimate, but the other half was completely a fabrication of Mr. Gleick. Then, just for fun and games, let's say that the more damaging, more incriminating "evidence" in the treasure trove encapsulated the information Mr. Gleick fabricated and attempted to pass off as legitimate...
www.forbes.com...

But the stolen Heartland documents exonerated, rather than embarrassed, the skeptic movement. They demonstrate only an interest at Heartland in getting the truth out on the actual objective science. They revealed little funding from oil companies and other self interested commercial enterprises, who actually contribute heavily to global warming alarmists as protection money instead. The documents also show how poorly funded the global warming skeptics at Heartland are, managing on a shoestring to raise a shockingly successful global challenge to the heavily overfunded UN and politicized government science.


Maybe that is why Gleick or one of his coconspirators felt compelled to go farther and composed a fake memo titled “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy.” Whoever did it understood that a document composed on his computer and distributed online would contain markings demonstrating its source and confirming the forgery, so they printed it out and scanned it to hide its digital trail. The scanned document itself, however, contained evidence that allowed even amateur sleuths to trace it back to the Pacific Institute’s offices, as explained in an article by Megan McCardle, a senior editor for The Atlantic. (McCardle, incidentally, is highly sympathetic to global warming alarmism.)

The forged cover memo, not the actual stolen document, contains language mirroring Climategate. It discussed fabricated projects that are not activities of Heartland, and references a $200,000 Koch Foundation contribution for climate change activities that doesn’t exist. The Koch Foundation confirms that it gave Heartland only $25,000 in 2011, earmarked for health care policy projects and not climate change, an amount equal to only 0.5% of Heartland’s 2011 budget. By contrast, as the Journal also observed, the budget last year for the Natural Resources Defense Council was $95.4 million, and for the World Wildlife Fund $238.5 million.


So we've followed the money and now we've followed the scandals... whose side are you on, Grimpachi? I'm excited to follow your next suggestion because, so far, you're 2 for 2 with providing trails by which to make the Heartland Institute look golden and smell like roses compared to their detractors! Every step of the way here, I'm finding myself seeing Heartland as being a relatively benign group going up against massive money movers and power players who stand to make serious billions off of the AGW scare tactics and are coming out against Heartland with all guns blazing because the group is detrimental to those billionaire's stock positions.



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6




What I found was that Phillip Morris had contracted Heartland to investigate the link on second hand smoke and cancer... and paid them somewhere between $100,000 and $500,000 over the years to do so.


Very good now what about RJ Renolds and the other companies they helped? Or did they help them out of the goodness of their heart? Hell in just 2010-2011 they got $110,000

Heartland’s Bast – “Joe Camel is Innocent!”

They can't be doing too bad considering that on Heartland's Form 990 in 2013 reported revenues of $5.3 million for only 29 full-time staff as well as 222 unpaid policy advisors. Do you need the 222 explained to you?






Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on incriminating facts? If they need to be manufactured or forged, are they still incriminating?


A fact isn't manufactured. A fact is either incriminating or it isn't.




So we've followed the money and now we've followed the scandals... whose side are you on, Grimpachi? I'm excited to follow your next suggestion because, so far, you're 2 for 2 with providing trails by which to make the Heartland Institute look golden and smell like roses compared to their detractors!


I find that statement really interesting. You say I am 2 for 2 and I am laughing because I think you forgot how to count.

I have only asked you if




I wonder did you find any scandals such as Heartlands with tobacco?


Maybe you can enlighten me on the other suggestion you say I made?

Oh I see. You forgot who has said what in the thread. That must be embarrassing.




I'm finding myself seeing Heartland as being a relatively benign group going up against massive money movers


Really???



Dear Roy:
Thank you for inviting me to request renewed general operating support for The Heartland Institute for 1999.1 note that Philip Morris contributed $5,000 last August (for a Gold Table at our annual benefit) and $25,000 in October (general
operating support). It also has allowed you to serve on our Board of Directors, which has produced many positive results for the entire organization.

Because Heartland does many things that benefit Philip Morris' bottom line, things that no other organization does, I hope you will consider boosting your general operating support this year to $30,000 and once again reserve a Gold
Table for an additional $5,000.
We genuinely need your financial support. Maybe by the end of this letter you'll agree that we merit even greater support; I certainly hope so!

Working with State Elected Officials

Unlike any other free-market think tank. Heartland's primary audience is the nation's 7,500 state elected officials. We reach them more often, and generate from them more requests for research, than any other think tank in the country


Mr. Roy Marden Manager of Industry Affairs Philip Morris Management Cos.

Have a read Heartland documents

I find you classification of them as a benign group to be off mark by a wide margin.

Reminds me of this.


edit on 21-3-2015 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Maybe you can enlighten me on the other suggestion you say I made?

Oh I see. You forgot who has said what in the thread. That must be embarrassing.


My bad, I confused you with 'jrod.' Not exactly embarrassing to me, though. The narratives are similar enough for the confusion to be easily dismissed.

You're sitting there discussing numbers that are utterly dwarfed by the amount the groups pushing green energy in the name of ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE are shuffling around their players. Revenues of $5.3 million, you say? Let's examine the other side here...
www.nytimes.com...

The company, Silver Spring Networks, produces hardware and software to make the electricity grid more efficient. It came to Mr. Gore’s firm, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, one of Silicon Valley’s top venture capital providers, looking for $75 million to expand its partnerships with utilities seeking to install millions of so-called smart meters in homes and businesses.

Mr. Gore and his partners decided to back the company, and in gratitude Silver Spring retained him and John Doerr, another Kleiner Perkins partner, as unpaid corporate advisers.

The deal appeared to pay off in a big way last week, when the Energy Department announced $3.4 billion in smart grid grants. Of the total, more than $560 million went to utilities with which Silver Spring has contracts. Kleiner Perkins and its partners, including Mr. Gore, could recoup their investment many times over in coming years.

Silver Spring Networks is a foot soldier in the global green energy revolution Mr. Gore hopes to lead. Few people have been as vocal about the urgency of global warming and the need to reinvent the way the world produces and consumes energy. And few have put as much money behind their advocacy as Mr. Gore and are as well positioned to profit from this green transformation, if and when it comes.


www.newsmax.com...

It’s an important question, considering the U.S. government spends $22 billion a year to fight the global warming crisis (twice as much as it spends protecting our border).

To put that in perspective, that is $41,856 every minute going to global warming initiatives.


Just 5 years ago, that $22 Billion was a "mere" $9 Billion:
www.forbes.com...

According to the GAO, annual federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010, amounting to $106.7 billion over that period. The money was spent in four general categories: technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, science to understand climate changes, international assistance for developing countries, and wildlife adaptation to respond to actual or expected changes. Technology spending, the largest category, grew from $2.56 billion to $5.5 billion over this period, increasingly advancing over others in total share. Data compiled by Joanne Nova at the Science and Policy Institute indicates that the U.S. Government spent more than $32.5 billion on climate studies between 1989 and 2009. This doesn’t count about $79 billion more spent for climate change technology research, foreign aid and tax breaks for “green energy.”


The recipients of this money? The very same people pushing the agenda of AGW scaremongering, including the scientists whose grant money (their lifeblood) DEPENDS on them continuing the sham and shouting "doom! doom! doom!" from the rooftops of their labs and research facilities. NEVER oppose the Meal Ticket.

Now, do you wish to continue claiming that $5.3 Million per year spread across 29 full time staff ($183,000 per staff person... which, when considering a federal average allowable overhead rate of 1.5 equates to an average compensation of $73,000 per staff member plus $110,000 used to purchase supplies, pay insurance, pay infrastructure leases, pay electric bills, etc... the cost of doing business) somehow, some way trumps a $22 BILLION dollar sham?




posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 07:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
So we've followed the money and now we've followed the scandals... whose side are you on, Grimpachi? I'm excited to follow your next suggestion because, so far, you're 2 for 2 with providing trails by which to make the Heartland Institute look golden and smell like roses compared to their detractors!


Wow.

I can honestly say this might be the most naïve and gullible post I've ever seen on ATS (and that includes all the stuff from Skunk Works, etc).

You are actually defending the Heartland Institute? This is hilarious.

And your "external source" is an op-ed in Forbes by Peter Ferrara, who is an analyst for...the Heartland Institute lol.


Peter Joseph Ferrara (born 1955) is an American lawyer, policy analyst, and columnist who is the current general counsel for the American Civil Rights Union and analyst for The Heartland Institute.


Wiki

Not only that, but according to an interview he gave for this Bloomberg article, Op-Eds for Sale, he is a long time proud op-ed shill:


Peter Ferrara, a senior policy adviser at the conservative Institute for Policy Innovation, says he, too, took money from Abramoff to write op-ed pieces boosting the lobbyist's clients. "I do that all the time," Ferrara says. "I've done that in the past, and I'll do it in the future."


And you are laughing at other people's naivety? This is the story you believe according to a self-professed paid shill:


Maybe that is why Gleick or one of his coconspirators felt compelled to go farther and composed a fake memo titled “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy.”


So this document was faked by Peter Gleick huh? I guess that explains this news article:

Peter Gleick cleared of forging documents in Heartland expose


But before we turn this into more he-said/shill-said, I can do better – I can prove this document was not a forgery right here right now. This is the original document:

www.desmogblog.com...

Excerpt:


And here’s what Peter Ferrara said about it, per your post:


It discussed fabricated projects that are not activities of Heartland


So if these projects were not real Heartland activities, just fabrications by Peter Gleick - then why did Heartland target the K-12 school curriculum, exactly as described in this document just over a year later? I did a thread about it last summer that got a fair bit of attention here on ATS:

Creationists Team Up With Climate Deniers To Take Down Science Education.

So how do you want to explain this – is it just an amazing coincidence? Is Peter Gleick psychic? Or maybe Heartland simply liked his “fake” idea so much that they decided to make it real?

Maybe you should go ask Peter Ferrara, then come back and tell us how we're apparently 3 for 3 lol.



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Ahh... I see what you are doing.

See you have made the mistake of thinking/assuming I believe in every source on the opposite side.

I don't.


At this point you are not even addressing the article or it's source you are trying to turn this into a tit for tat.

Have you given up on defending Heartland the article or Patrick Moore? The reason I ask is because you are trying to compare a federal budget to one denier institute of spending and I am pretty sure doing so is along the lines of a red herring fallacy.


If you would like to make a thread about other groups or the federal spending on climate change I will be happy to participate and I promise not to try to derail it like you.



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: mc_squared



Psst...your visual aid is just a bunch of talking points. Find your critical thinking cap and compare the images posted in the thread so far. You just might learn something.



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 07:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
You're sitting there discussing numbers that are utterly dwarfed by the amount the groups pushing green energy in the name of ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE are shuffling around their players. Revenues of $5.3 million, you say? Let's examine the other side here...


This is such a disingenuous response, and very typical of the mental gymnastics climate deniers start to perform on these threads when faced with real evidence. You're comparing money for research and development of technological solutions versus how much it costs to get some shill to lie in a newspaper article.

Your apples-to-oranges logic does nothing to take away from the fact Heartland are a bunch of proven liars who took money from tobacco companies to question the science on smoking, and now take money from oil companies to make up BS about climate scientists:




posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

Pssst...I've provided plenty of concrete material in this thread that backs up everything I've said. Try actually reading the thread instead of glazing over the perty pictures and judging people.



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: mc_squared

I never thought I would see the day where someone defended the Heartland Institute on ATS.

To top it off, they also present an article from a paid self professed shill as evidence that someone else is a shill.

It is something to see alright. Deconstructing disinformation is exactly where this thread belongs.



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: mc_squared

The 'concrete material' you refer to must have been deleted by an angry mod or something...

Not judging you, pal, just the ideas you are promoting.



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

That or the hoax bin.

Skeptics here will never accept the facts because they simply don't have the balls. They've spent so much time talking down to everyone they perceive as an idiot Liberal who's been brainwashed by Al Gore yaddi yadda - it would take a lot of courage to actually reverse course and admit they might have gotten a little duped here themselves.

This is courage none of them seem to have, so instead we just get to watch crazy mental gymnastics defending an institution that publicly encourages children to smoke.



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Nothing like a tantrum to set the mood...



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join