It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: mc_squared
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:
While neither report denies the reality of climate change, nor do they suggest taking immediate, aggressive action. Instead, ExM argues for adaption and mitigation, suggesting we’ll all have to become less reliant on fossil fuels in future. In addition to this, as fossil fuel deposits diminish, prices are set to rise. In response to this, ExM acknowledges the need to set a price on carbon.
the papers appeared to suggest that ExM was ready to admit that burning fossil fuels contributed to climate change.
With the public's perception of corporate credibility waning, hiring corporate spokespeople is of limited use. "For the media and the public, the corporation will be one of the least credible sources of information, on its own product, environmental and safety risks. Both these audiences will turn to other experts ... to get an objective viewpoint", Amanda Little from the Sydney office of PR firm Burson-Marsteller told an advertising conference in 1995.
"Developing third party support and validation for the basic risk messages of the corporation is essential. This support should ideally come from medical authorities, political leaders, union officials, relevant academics, fire and police officials, environmentalists, regulators"
originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Metallicus
Sometimes a blind squirrel can find a nut. Thinkprogress is more credible than the Heartland Institute. The thinkprogress link has list is of known corporate donations to the group.
Follow the money....
The president and chief executive officer of CAP is Neera Tanden, who worked for the Obama and Clinton administrations and for Hillary Clinton’s campaigns. The first president and CEO was John Podesta, who served as chief of staff to then U.S. President Bill Clinton. Podesta remained with the organization as chairman of the board until he joined the Obama White House staff in December 2013. Tom Daschle is the current chairman.
The Center for American Progress runs a campus outreach group, Generation Progress, and a sister advocacy organization, the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Citing Podesta's influence in the formation of the Obama Administration, a November 2008 article in Time stated that "not since the Heritage Foundation helped guide Ronald Reagan's transition in 1981 has a single outside group held so much sway"
Lawrence Korb, Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan; Gene Sperling, Director of the National Economic Council under Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama; Ruy Teixeira, political scientist and author of The Emerging Democratic Majority; and, most recently, former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle and Elizabeth Edwards, late wife of former presidential candidate and former U.S. Senator from North Carolina John Edwards. Sarah Rosen Wartell, a co-founder and executive vice-president of the center, has been named President of the Urban Institute
Investigative journalist Robert Dreyfuss wrote in the March 1, 2004 edition of The Nation: "The idea for the Center [CAP] began with discussions in 2002 between (Morton) Halperin and George Soros, the billionaire investor.… Halperin, who heads the office of Soros' Open Society Institute, brought (former Clinton chief of staff) John Podesta into the discussion, and beginning in late 2002 Halperin and Podesta circulated a series of papers to funders." The Capital Research Center reports that Podesta eagerly “took on the project of creating a new laboratory for liberalism.”
Soon thereafter, Soros and Halperin (who would become CAP's senior vice president) recruited Harold Ickes—chief fundraiser and former deputy chief of staff for the Clinton White House—to help organize the new think tank, which was launched on July 7, 2003 as the American Majority Institute. The name was changed to Center for American Progress on September 1, 2003.
Hillary Clinton, too, was intimately involved in the formation of CAP. She told reporter Matt Bai of The New York Times Magazine on October 12, 2003, "We need some new intellectual capital. There has to be some thought given as to how we build the 21st-century policies that reflect the Democrat Party's values." She later told The Nation's Robert Dreyfuss: "We've had the challenge of filling a void on our side of the ledger for a long time, while the other side created an infrastructure that has come to dominate political discourse. The Center [CAP] is a welcome effort to fill that void."
Persistent press leaks during CAP's early years confirmed that Mrs. Clinton, and not its nominal leader, John Podesta, was ultimately in charge of the organization at that time. "It's the official Hillary Clinton think tank," an inside source confided to Christian Bourge of United Press International. Robert Dreyfuss noted in The Nation: "In looking at Podesta's center, there's no escaping the imprint of the Clintons. It's not completely wrong to see it as a shadow government, a kind of Clinton White-House-in-exile—or a White House staff in readiness for President Hillary Clinton." Dreyfuss noted the abundance of Clintonites on the Center's staff, among them Robert Boorstin, Bill Clinton's national security speechwriter; Gene Sperling, Democratic Leadership Council staffer and the former head of President Clinton's National Economic Council; Matt Miller, former senior advisor to President Clinton's Office of Management and Budget; Debbie Berger, daughter of Clinton national security chief Sandy Berger; and others. In 2007 Mrs. Clinton said, at the YearlyKos convention of left-wing bloggers, that she herself had "helped to start and support" CAP.
Wealthy donors contributed many millions of dollars to help the CAP establish itself during the first few years of its existence. These donations included $22,274,000 from the Sandler Foundation, created by Herbert and Marion Sandler; $3 million over a three-year period from George Soros; $3 million from the Marisla Foundation; $2,192,450 from the New York Community Trust; $1.9 million from the Stephen M. Silberstein Foundation; $1,849,991 from George Soros’s Open Society Institute; $797,983 from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; and $765,000 from the Tides Foundation.
originally posted by: rickymouse
Well, I think that the unnatural chemistry we are dumping into our environment is definitely causing problems. Remember, unnatural is even when excessive amounts of a natural chemical or element is released in an area. The same is true with smoke coming out of a smokestack, like in China. Those smokes are unnatural and change the environment over a large area. We waste so much fuel it is ridiculous, get rid of the waste, not complain about the heat to heat a person's home then tax them for it on top of the cost of the fuels causing them hardship.
A bunch of small local factories or farms running small efficient operations ecologically friendly is better than big factories or farms. The small farms and businesses also make a living for more people.
China is pushing the smog button presently, yet we buy their products and ship them half the way across the world. If that makes sense ecologically, you must be as nuts as our government is to believe a consumer based economy can be secure.
Its mandate is to consider only the human causes of global warming, not the many natural causes changing the climate for billions of years.
originally posted by: fernalley
"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."
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.
originally posted by: ThecakeisalieIt is only plant food if there are trees to absorb it, and the rate of deferstation vastly outweighs the rate of reforestation. The less trees, the less Co2 is absorbed. Eventually all that excess Co2 has to go somewhere.