It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Backgrounds of Global Warming Skeptics.

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 04:52 PM
Pacific Research Institute (PRI)

Claims: "Air quality in the United States has improved dramatically over the past 30 years as a result of the combined efforts of industry, individuals, and government." (I don't buy that for a second. Look at all the SUVs on the bloody road. Industry, individuals, and government has allowed that to happen
"The Kyoto Protocol is wrong on all accounts. There is no conclusive scientific evidence that global warming exists or that, if it does, human activity is a contributing factor. But in the event warming is occurring and is stoppable, the Protocol will not even come close to achieving its stated goal. The world's largest emitters will get a free ride, leaving the United States to bear the burden."

Who Benefits: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy has received $175,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998. Other contributers include, Altria, Chevron Texaco, Cypress Semiconductor, Freedom Communications, Microsoft, Pfizer, PhRMA, SBC, Verizon and, White House Writers Group.

Here is something I found to be quite upsetting. Sally C. Pipes who is the President and CEO of PRI, served on Arnold Schwarzenegger's transition team. I also pulled this off from PSI's web site

February 15, 2005
PRI's Lance Izumi joined Governor Schwarzenegger and a coalition of education, business and community leaders in support of the Governor's Year of Reform education proposals.

Does this mean that Governor Schwarzenegger is funded by ExxonMobil? Maybe some ATSers in California can ask him.


posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 12:28 AM
More good work. Thanks Umbrax.

Some questions:

Who is the "White House Writers Group"?

...I don't have a handle on Arnie's agenda. Know he's into stem cell research and that he's funded by big money (of course) - but what's he up to with education, and CA's pollution control laws?


posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 12:41 AM
Also - just saw this. ...New study says it's likely too late now for interventions to turn things around...

posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 01:11 AM

Originally posted by soficrow
Who is the "White House Writers Group"?

I have to say I've never heard of them before either, so I checked out their web site.

They are a group of former White House speech writers who provide a wide range of communication services. They do not publish their client list. The five founding members all worked for Regan, Bush Sr, or W. Bush.

I did find out from that there clients include the Hoover Institution, Force Protection, Inc., and (*GASP*) The Carlyle Group.

Mark K. Davis one of the founding members is also with PSI. His title is the Senior Fellow in National Issues.

posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 08:28 PM

Originally posted by Umbrax

Originally posted by soficrow
Who is the "White House Writers Group"?

They are a group of former White House speech writers who provide a wide range of communication services. They do not publish their client list. The five founding members all worked for Regan, Bush Sr, or W. Bush.

I did find out from that there clients include the Hoover Institution, Force Protection, Inc., and (*GASP*) The Carlyle Group.

Thanks Umbrax. ...and why am I not surprised.

posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 03:08 PM
I'm pretty sure most scientists agree that the globe is heating, if for no other reason than that average temperatures are up over the past 100 years. I think they get argumentitive over the cause (green house gases, etc.) of global warming, and when it will max out. Those questions are important. I'm sure you've all heard that we're running short on clean water globally. "Water is going to be the next oil"? Imagine what impact a higher global temperature will have on nations' quests for water.

Air pollution is a problem. I live in LA, and I can sometimes see it looking out my window. Some scientists will insist, however, that nature can provide us with plenty of air pollution on it's own. Maybe we should stop cutting down the rainforests? It is alleged that they are largely responsible for supplying the globe with its breathable air(we've lost about 60% of our rainforests over the past 40 years). They may also cut through "greenhouse gases".

I'm not largely concerned, however. I'm sure that the earth is more resiliant than humans are. Long before we have destroyed the world, she will certainly have destroyed us. Toxic gases, poisoned water, war, famine, disease... all of these things could (and have) plague(d) the world for thousands of years, and while the earth will eventually regrow her rainforests and clean her air, humanity will only recover if enough of us survive.

If humanity does survive itself, it will hopefully have records about how we came so close to killing ourselves and we won't try it again. (Not to mention that there will be no such thing as oil anymore, hooray!)

Are most people concerned about humanity surviving or the earth. Look, in fewer than 50 years, we're supposed to have doubled our population, right? I'm going to assume that we'll either see a war, famine, or disease (or if we were REALLY smart, we'd stop having so many friggin' kids), and that our population won't reach 12 billion by 2050... but that's just me and my 2.13 yen.


posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 11:09 AM

Originally posted by Umbrax
Lately I have noticed a lot of members here that are skeptic of the Global warming scare. Skepticism is a very good thing, but what is it that sets off our alarm? Is it conflicting points of view? Contradictions with what we have already learned? My skeptic alarm goes off when I think "who benefits".
When it comes to reading reports on global warming you have to think, who benefits from this report? Do I benefit? Does the author benefit? Does the person or organization funding the author benefit.
Who benefits and what is the benefit we should be all asking.

In this thread I will be listing scientists and organizations who stand to benefit from polluting the planet. I will post their claims on how the Earth is fine or how we can't do anything about it. I will also list who is funding them.

The Cato Institute

Claims: The Cato Institute claims that the increase in greenhouse gases was overestimated. If the world follows the Kyoto Protocol we will only be able to decrease global warming 0.07°C by 2005.

Who benefits: The Cato Institute gets it money from Exxon Mobil and others in the fossil fuel industry. The Cato Institute has a budget of about $14 million a year, derived from 15,000 contributors. At least $75,000 has been given by Exxon. Other investors include:Microsoft Corp- oration, Viacom International,Express, Chase Manhattan Bank, Chemical Bank,Citicorp/Citibank,Shell Oil Company and Tenneco Gas,Castle Rock Foundation (reformed Coors Foundation),as well as the American Petroleum Institute.


Steven Milloy

Claims: The Kyoto Protocol will have little effect. Pretty much claims anything Harming the environment is bunk.

Who benefits
hilip Morris funded the creation of Milloy was registered as a lobbyist with the EOP Group in 1999, with the American Petroleum Institute and FMC Corp listed as clients. He is also an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute(see above) and a commentator on Fox News.

Thanks for those who took the time to read this. There is much, much more to come in future posts.

Note: All of these links are active at the time of this posting. I have noticed that some of the related links I have posted else where on ATS are now down. If more of these sites go down I will have to speculate that someone or some group has taken them down.

Edit: disable smileyes

[edit on 18/2/2005 by Umbrax]

Sorry but i haven’t gone through all the posts here yet but i thought i would post this anyway...

About 2 years ago i was reading my morning newspaper and come across an article saying that breast feeding can harm your baby.
It went on to say that, by women breast feeding, they are poisoning them with all the chemicals that woman put on the bodies like perfume, skin lotion and powder.

I thought to myself, while reading this, why don’t they just warn women not to use harmful product like perfume while breastfeeding?

Then i got to the bottom of the article and see that the research was carried out by the department of agriculture!!! Hmmm what do they help produce i wonder??

Soya milk and/or Cows milk for your babies everyone!!!

Just goes to show that these so called experts do normally have a hidden agenda.

Point with global warming is that the people who say there is a problem don’t really have much to gain from it. People who say there is no problem normally have a lot to loose i.e. Oil, Cars, Factories etc...

posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 11:34 AM

Originally posted by undercoverchef
Point with global warming is that the people who say there is a problem don’t really have much to gain from it. People who say there is no problem normally have a lot to loose i.e. Oil, Cars, Factories etc...

This is exactly my point of view.

But the people who say global warming is a problem have something to lose too. They don't stand to lose money or material things, they will lose everything else.
The oil industry loses its profit. What is money worth when you can't buy food because it is all contaminated? What good is money when your family is washed away by floods?

The Oil industry has so much money to throw into what ever they want. If they wanted people to believe the sun revolved around the Earth they have enough money to make that happen.

Those with the oil have the power. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

undercoverchef, don't worry about having to read all the posts, it is a dry read. But next time someone post a link saying "so-and-so" says that global warming is not a concern you will have this thread to refer to.

posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 07:40 PM
I think that we all have something to lose by global warming. Don't you think that there is legitimate research out there that gives good arguments for both sides?

Here, I'll do some now.

Let's start with the dramatic changes in global climate that have taken place billions of years before humans (and even life) existed. Everyone knows about the Ice Age, right? Well, the misnomer that people usually use in talking about the Ice Age is the word "the". There have actually been as many as four major ice ages (one of which covered the entire planet with miles of snow and froze the oceans solid) and innumerable "Little Ice Ages", the latest of which lasted from about 1400 to 1800 and covered only the northern hemisphere.

In contrast to Ice Ages, the earth has "warm periods". I wonder what kind of genius it took to come up with that name?

Radical global changes can happen quickly or slowly and with greater and lesser magnitude depending on which variables are involved. One of the biggest variables is the Earth's closeness to the sun which changes due to "Milankovitch cycles". Obviously the Earth's closeness to the sun is a factor as we see it every year during the different seasons. Now, there is one major cycle that lasts for about 100,000 years. It has been 10,000 or 20,000 years since the last major ice age ended (or it is still ending, depending on which geologists you talk to), leaving us another good 30,000 years for the earth to heat up before it starts getting cold again.

Another factor is atmospheric composition. Now, this is where scientists with special interests will disagree. Scientists funded by oil by however many degrees will insist that CO, CO2, and methane in the air are at levels which aren't dangerous. There is a new gas, just discovered that traps energy 18,000 times as effectively as CO2, however. Scientists don't know exactly where it comes from (though they assume that it has something to do with human actvities). Depending on how you present the data (or omit some like that "new" gas) will determine your official stance on global warming.

It should be admitted though that climate changes in between ice ages and warm periods are based on variables which are mostly unpredictable (see "little ice age" link above). The reason that global warming alarms have been raised is that our average global temperature is 1.5 degrees higher than other temperatures in the past 5,000 years. Our current temperature is not even close to the maximum temperature that the earth has held, nor is it as hot as the average temperature the earth has had since its conception.

The Carboniferous Age
"Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm -- comparable to average CO2 concentrations today!"

There are great differences between then and now, however. For one the earth was covered with jungle then and now it's covered with cities. Also, the oil we're using now was being created back then. There was, however, more volcanic activity and a much higher concentration of sulfur in the air. Sulfer isn't a greenhouse gas, but it has been known to change o2 and o3 into s2o2 and so3 (if I remember chemistry... which I don't).

Here is a good link with information on climate change and the ice age with several more good links on it.

What can I say about all of this? I don't have much of an opinion... it would seem that we've all been well educated on greenhouse gases and global warming. And it does send a good message about conservation and recycling. But it seems that whoever's been running that campaigns to help stop greenhouse gases (and who'd want to disagree with them and be labeled an "earth killer"?) failed to mention the number of other environmental factors which could be responsible and which we have no control over. I wouldn't call it a conspiracy, but there is something to be said for the oil company who promotes the idea of global warming in order to artificially raise the prices of oil. Even companies that provide electricity. Have you heard that we're having an "energy crisis" over here in California? It's simply not true. However GE and the state are making bank off of the increased prices. What qualifies as an "energy crisis"? And why are we not all urged to put solar panels on top of your house? I know there are tax incentives for those with energy efficient houses but I'd scarcely say that the government is promoting them seeing as how very few people even know about them... or know where to get a solar panel put on their house... or know anyone else with a solar panel on their house.

In my humble opinion, logically, we are responsible in some degree to contributing to global warming. We create millions of tons of greenhouse gases a day. That's not disputed. However, the climate change has been so small, and one can't say greenhouse gases are the only factor in global warming that I'm convinced that we'll run out of oil long before we've done any irreversible damage to the atmosphere. (Australia, I'm hoping that hole in the ozone will heal)

It would seem that both sides have special interests. One side wants to make the masses conserve more energy and scare us into thinking we're going to run out of every energy source one day (impossible) and the other side wants us to believe that using THEIR resources isn't harmful to the environment and let us believe that oil and other combustible fuels will last forever (impossible).

posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 08:30 PM
What I Like About You

Originally posted by ServoHahn
It would seem that both sides have special interests. One side wants to make the masses conserve more energy and scare us into thinking we're going to run out of every energy source one day (impossible) and the other side wants us to believe that using THEIR resources isn't harmful to the environment and let us believe that oil and other combustible fuels will last forever (impossible).

You just earned one of my “Way Above” votes for the month.

While I may differ on a few details, in my opinion, you are on to the game.

The truth is that all sides in the “global warming controversy” have their agendas, and all of them are driven by self-interest.

Whether it could be considered “enlightened self-interest” or not depends on the individual.

Not all of those who are promoting the Global Warming Scare are in it for the money, any more than those who are skeptical of it are necessarily selfishly protecting their assets.

But there are plenty of people in both camps who are in this for nothing more than money. Period.

So, Is The Sky Really Falling?

I honestly don't know one way or another about the whole Global Warming “question”, but I do know that when people try to scare me, or tell me not to ask questions, they are covering something up.

That's why I remain on the fence about Global Warming: because people on both sides of the issue are obviously lying to me.

As I have made clear enough elsewhere, I don't like being lied to.

So until someone offers more than marionette strings and propaganda parrotry as proof to me either way, I remain undecided.

If that bothers anyone, too freakin' bad.

It's my mind and I'll use it as I see fit.

posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 03:37 AM
there are some good unbiased resources that you can use to make an opinion about global warming. Although it's not vital that you take a side, it's be nice to know what people who do their own research on a topic think about it rather than listening to others who contort the facts to their own ends. I'd be very happy to hear your informed opinion and then whether you care or not :-)

I am of the mind that the earth IS getting hotter but that it's SUPPOSED to. It's possible that we've sped it up a little but on a whole, I don't think that it's enough to make much of a difference. We should stop polluting the atmosphere because IT'S BAD for you. Forget about glabal warming.

I'm not being defensive when I ask this, but which about parts do you disagree with me?

posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 12:03 PM
Umbrax, job well done.
But as a skeptic on Global Warming, I have one tiny question for you?
In your research to investigate the backgrounds of scientists and organizations that are skeptical of Global Warming, some of whom, despite where their fundings are coming from, are not influenced by the 'money' and are sincere about their claims and subsequent research(s) to indicate their claims, have you investigated those scientist and organizations that back and claim that Global Warming is real and factual?

You know, in all fairness to objectivity and all.


posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 12:49 PM
Seekerof , there are plenty of conflicting research for both sides of this matter.
What is factual and what isn't is difficult to say. One group says this and the other says the opposite.
The way I take information is to first be skeptical. I have no way of actually verifying what most reports say. So it comes down to a question, who should I believe? For example, should I believe the tobacco companies when they say smoking is not addictive?

I have discovered these groups by reading posts on ATS. Sometime I will find a article on the web and decide to see where its funding is from. So far I have only found one source that was not shown to be funded by a polluter. That was the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. I made a post on them on the first page of this thread. I wrote,

Who benefits: OISM's funds are unknown. That being said the following will only allow you to speculate on who benefits.

I will post all my findings even if it is shown they are not funded by a polluter.

In my opinion a scientist who is sincere about false global warming they would know not to be on Exxon's payroll. They would know that their reports will be accused of pushing their employers agenda.
Big industry is using these skeptic global warming report as a mandate to continue polluting.

ServoHahn and Majic, you both agree that both sides have special interests.
Other that having a clean and safe environment what does the 'green' side have to gain? Who are the groups that are promoting the message of global warming? What is their special interest? What money do you claim they have to gain? It is far more profitable to pollute, that is why it continues.

In the end I have to decide who to believe. Those who are supported by the likes of Exxon or those that are supported by public donations.

posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 01:04 PM
Agreed, Umbrax.
I made my comment not to demean you or insinuate otherwise.
Your research skills are not in question here.

What I question is what both sides stand to gain, other than warning of Global Warming or not.

IMHO, if global warming is here, then there should be no debate on the issue, for all minds should be looking on not how to prevent or deter something that is already occurring, but how to best deal with it, etc.


posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 01:35 PM

What I question is what both sides stand to gain, other than warning of Global Warming or not.

Maybe sometime I can start a new thread about who is behind the 'green' side.

IMHO, if global warming is here, then there should be no debate on the issue, for all minds should be looking on not how to prevent or deter something that is already occurring, but how to best deal with it, etc.

I believe the heart of the debate is whether or not man made green house gases are significant.
You are right we need to figuring out how to deal with global warming.
I am most concerned right now for the people who depend on water from The Himalayan Glaciers.
Global Warming Is Causing The Himalayan Glaciers To Melt. (from ATSNN)

Global warming is upon us even skeptics are beginning to agree we are facing global warming.
Global Warming Skeptic Changes His Mind After Examining Soil

posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 08:02 PM

Originally posted by Majic
Following The Money

It's encouraging to see research along these lines being posted, and I hope to see plenty more of it.

If you want to get a real picture of how money fits into the Global Warming business, look at who's funding the "pro-Global Warming" research.

Do you have any sources showing how real 'greens' hope to profit - besides the phonies jumping on the "alternates for profit" bandwagon?

...Pollution causes real problems - from genetic damage to global warming. The usual suspects are selling snake oil but most other greens are real, and honestly looking for an educated analysis of the problems in hopes of finding real solutions - for the good of humanity and the earth, not profit.


posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 08:12 PM

besides the phonies jumping on the "alternates for profit" bandwagon?

Eh? The only way Alternatives will become viable is if there is "profit" to be made... those of us "greens" who have realized this are not "phonies", we're just being realistic.

It's NOT a power grab as Majic believes, it's just the third wave of Environmentalism(the first two being Conservation and Guilt-Triping both of which DID NOT WORK).

I would love to see YOUR analysis on the situation Majic, you seem elequent can you back up words with research?

posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 03:25 PM

posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 12:02 PM
Tell a lie often enough, and it will be believed. Although I believe that extremists on both sides of the issue muddy the picture too much for us to wade through the bull, and sort out the 'big picture' Like 'Boiling Point' by Ross Gelbspan vs. Crighton 'State of Fear' Cui bono is appropriate though for the funding of the echo chamber. My advice- write a book about it and make money. Give the money to your favorite think tank.

SALLIE BALIUNAS, a Harvard-Smithsonian Institute astrophysicist, has, along with colleague WILLIE SOON, been giving deniers scientific cover since the mid-1990s. They began by claiming solar effects could account for the rise of the global thermostat. After that theory was debunked, Baliunas and Soon wrote a paper—partially funded by the American Petroleum Institute—for Climate Research that claimed that the 20th century hasn’t been all that warm. Their conclusions have been praised as the epitome of “sound science” by deniers, including Sen. James Inhofe. The journal’s editor, meanwhile, said the paper should never have been published. Baliunas and Soon are each connected to at least four ExxonMobil-funded groups.
PAUL DRIESSEN: Connections to ExxonMobil-funded groups: at least five.
PATRICK MICHAELS: University of Virginia climatologist and Cato Institute fellow. Author of The Satanic Gases and Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media. Connections to ExxonMobil-funded groups: at least seven.
STEVEN MILLOY: A columnist for and publisher of and Milloy also runs the Advancement of Sound Science Center and the Free Enterprise Action Institute. Those two groups—apparently run out of Milloy’s home—received $90,000 from ExxonMobil. Key quote: The date of Kyoto’s implementation will “live in scientific and economic infamy.” Connections to ExxonMobil-funded groups: at least five.
S. FRED SINGER: A godfather of global warming denial, author of The Scientific Case Against the Global Climate Treaty and Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate. Key quote: “There is no convincing evidence that the global climate is actually warming.” Connections to ExxonMobil-funded groups: at least seven.

posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 01:13 PM
Where's global warming now?: I would like to know where are all the high-priced environmental consultants, tree-huggers and doomsday preachers who are so worried about the warming trend of Alaska. Right now, I would suggest that their end-of-the-world theory is total nonsense and they should be sent packing to another part of the world that will listen to their nonsense. Quite frankly, I could use a dose of global warming right now. Letter to the Editor by Bob Egan, Anchorage (Alaska) Daily News

Well, I guess 3 months a year is enough to do the drilling work in AK now instead of 6, because the permafrost won't support their heavy equipment. Nope, no global warming here- go back to your 'State of Fear book by Crighton.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in