Tea Party climate change deniers funded by BP and other major polluters

As opposed to the fact that there are people that stand to profit by not being taxed for being polluters?

Or people who stand to profit by preventing real change in our energy policy by keeping our oil deals with the Saudis and our Coal deals with the assholes in this country?

And enough with the Al Gore shit. This is a scientific issue, Al Gore has nothing to do with it.

Go on, click on the link. When you get there look in the top left corner at the logo. It reads Ecologist: setting the environmental agenda since 1970,

Setting the agenda, guess how impartial that site is, then!

"...call it climate change because it wasn't as frightening as global warming. "

Oh for gods sake, why do you make this rubbish up? It was changed to climate change because global warming stopped. There were only a few years of slightly raised temperatures anyway, enough for the scaremongers to get an audience - look people, it's getting warm and it's your fault - but then it cooled down.
Oh this is hilarious, what will you tell us next?

Hey Jan, look at all the trolls begging for attention! Your the big threat to them here.

Who cares. They aren't anything to worry about if all they have to do is mark down legitimate videos and posts here. Doesn't change the validity or truth of the information provided and I think anyone here with any semblance of understanding of this knows that.

Mark down legitimate videos and posts? Mark down propaganda, don't you mean?
The things you post were maybe more relevant ten years ago when 'Global Warming' was still in fashion, but the tide turned, people woke up to reality, educated themselves and saw they were being misled. Some got left behind, however, and they now spend their time marking up your posts.

Dragging up old articles from years gone by isn't really going to do you much good, and I thought you weren't politically motivated? It is interesting, though, to see the amount of work you must be putting into this... oh wait, are you wanting me to defend what Luntz said eight years ago? I'm not politically motivated so I don't really care too much what was said in the early part of this decade, it's 2010, wake up! And unlike you, I haven't declared allegiance to any side/party/person so I'm not really interested in what you have presented here, again, it just smacks of desperation.

I will comment on one thing, though, "Not all Republicans agree with Luntz’s advice, Republican Mike Castle says the report fails to address the fact that pollution is a health threat." A play on words that any intelligent person can see through. Castle's statement didn't show disagreement with Luntz, it merely pointed out that Castle thought pollution was still an issue.

Hey Einstein, you said she was lying about him telling republicans to call it climate change and she proved you wrong. Are you that dumb?

Was Luntz the first person to rename global warming?

If Luntz decided to use the [then] new term of climate change, maybe it was to counteract the despicable tactics that had been used to scare people into believing we were going to burn unless we paid for our production of a harmless, and useful, trace gas.

"Luntz also recommends that GOP politicians avoid using the phrase “global warming,” opting instead for “climate change,” which he notes sounds “less frightening.” [Luntz, 2002 ; Guardian, 3/4/2003] "

The implication is that Luntz invented the term "climate change", or at least that's how it's been presented to me. Maybe Luntz decided to use that term because it was more relevant to reality? I don't know, but "global warming" isn't an accurate term to use in a cooling planet.
Look at the quotation marks in the paragraph above. There isn't a sentence by Luntz stating, "let's call it climate change because it sounds less frightening." All the paragraph contains is an implication, you're really left to make up the story for yourself.

A quick Google shows there were many references to "climate change" from well before Luntz' apparent invention of the term:

3 Jun 1992 - Christian responses to Climate Change and other. Environmental issues...
31 Dec 1995 - This paper considers the problem of determining future climate change in Africa uea.ac.uk ›
2 Jun 1996 - Literature is emerging on the adaptation of water resource systems to climate change informaworld.com/
12 Jun 1997 - The forests and climate change issue is extremely complex. foe.co.uk
1 Apr 1998 - If severe climate change is to be avoided... .mayerhillman.com/

There you go! Seems the term climate change was alive and kicking well before Luntz "invented" it!

Another idiot without substance speaks. Usually idiots attack the messenger because they are too stupid to understand the message.

"She stands her ground, and is not going anywhere." And there's the key - she is not going anywhere!

Really?

Take some time to read it, I am a physicist.

Round Six... KNOCKOUT. ;-)

Oh don't worry, I've read it. I sometimes pop into it when I need to check things I've been sent. It is a clever site, but not one I or anyone I know takes seriously. It's a site for the easily fooled.

and why is al gore doing this????

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031307.htm

Creators of carbon credit scheme cashing in on it

By Judi McLeod

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

There's an elephant in global warming's living room that few in the mainstream media want to talk about: the creators of the carbon credit scheme are the ones cashing in on it.

The two cherub like choirboys singing loudest in the Holier Than Thou Global Warming Cathedral are Maurice Strong and Al Gore.

This duo has done more than anyone else to advance the alarmism of man-made global warming.

With little media monitoring, both Strong and Gore are cashing in on the lucrative cottage industry known as man-made global warming.

http://adognamedkyoto.blogspot.com/Strong is on the board of directors of the Chicago Climate Exchange, Wikipedia-described as "the world's first and North America's only legally binding greenhouse gas emission registry reduction system for emission sources and offset projects in North America and Brazil."

Gore buys his carbon off-sets from himself--the Generation Investment Management LLP, "an independent, private, owner-managed partnership established in 2004 with offices in London and Washington, D.C." of which he is both chairman and founding partner.

To hear the saving-the-earth singsong of this dynamic duo, even the feather light petals of cherry blossoms in Washington leave a bigger carbon footprint.

It's a strange global warming partnership that Strong and Gore have, but it's one that's working.

Strong is the silent partner, a man whose name often draws a blank in the Washington cocktail circuit. Even though a former Secretary General of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (the much hyped Rio Earth Summit) and Under-Secretary General of the United Nations in the days of a beleaguered Kofi Annan, the Canadian born Strong is little known in the Unites States. That's because he spends most of his time in China where he works to make the communist country the world's next superpower. The nondescript Strong, nonetheless is big cheese in the world of climate change, and is one of the main architects of the coming-your-way-soon Kyoto Protocol.

its all about money $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

should i post articles about how rich gore got out of this scam??????

http://youare.fo

'should i post articles about how rich gore got out of this scam??????'

I don't know, what are your employers telling you? Keeps the post on top as well so people can see you for the buffoon you are. It doesn't change the facts about global warming or that the subjects of the article are lying greedy scumsuckers out to deny a clean sustainable future to the next generation.

But of course since you are too stupid to comprehend anything beyond your obsession or assignment here why would we expect anything else? With every piece of garbage you post here you just make the case more and more that ignorance and stupidity rules the climate denier movement and not science or facts. You claim big oil has us "by the balls" yet you trash Al Gore for actually investing in energy sources that seek to undo that? A dead giveaway that you are being fed this information.

The oil lobby is very adept at discrediting those who dare step on their toes... matter of fact I wouldn't put it past them to have dupes on this very site and others. It's a classic play. Go for the diversion, blame Al Gore, divert the conversation to his "income" and not the loss to our planet which is worth so much more along with the BILLIONS of blood and oil money raked in by big oil, coal, industrial agriculture, the petro- chemical industry, etc. Hide the truth at all costs, and by all means don't blow your cover.

Pathetic.

Holy crap, he's investing in environmentally friendly products! Jan's right. You are pathetic.

Yes, great site. They get my vote.

Sounds good, doesn't it, "Worldwide renewable energy capacity has reached 25%"
Truth is things in real life aren't so good. For example, wind turbines rarely even reach 25% of their rated power output and even then they require something like 90% standby power from conventional power stations to be available. What looks good on a cherry-picked article doesn't always look so good in the real world.

The main point here is that people are being lied to deliberately to feather the nests of those who care nothing for this planet or its inhabitants and it is a very DANGEROUS game to be playing. What they are doing is immoral to the nth degree, and it is a PR campaign and buying of our government that needs to be exposed. This is serious, especially now in regards to these tea party fakes using the frustration of others to catapult themselves into Congress based on deceptive means. Not that it isn't anything new to politics, but they are selling themselves as "bringing honor back" when all they really want is to continue to lead us down the road to ruin. At what point do we collectively stand up and say enough?

Wouldn't Jan "The Ultimate EcoWorrier" forGore be more appropriate?

Hey look, another Al Gore lover. You people are funny.

"Oh yes, don't you just LOVE CO2?"
Well, yes! You'd be dead, and you wouldn't have the wonderful world we have today without it!!!

So, do you think Greenpeace, WWF and the likes are funded by fluffy bunnies?
Anyway, keep posting your cherry-picked links, you're obviously having a field-day over this. Enjoy :)

Your ignorance regarding the effects of oversaturation of our oceans with CO2 and oversaturation of the atmosphere is clear enough aside from the facts of the health hazards of fossil fuels. And I will continue to post. Wouldn't want you to have nothing to do here.

Unlike you, who is supposedly apolitical, I don't usually get involved with politics so I can't really be too bothered with this. But, this is really fun to see, I've never 'seen' you so happy, and don't forget, the more links you post the more people will believe you! ;)
I tend to be more interested in science and while the 'who funds who' debate is interesting, it doesn't matter whether political parties or 'Green' groups take money from oil, (they both do it) it won't change the actual science one bit - you won't see an ice-free Arctic, and you won't see the world glowing like a cinder.

But getting back to facts, neither the oceans nor the atmosphere are saturated with CO2, and in a cooling planet the more CO2 we have at this stage the better.
As for the health hazards of fossil fuels, to an extent I agree with you (and you thought I was totally against you!). The difference is I tend to err on the realistic side of things. Fossil fuels got us to where we are today, are still needed, and still have a part to play in our future until a time comes when reliable alternative energy is found. Wind and solar power is still too ineffective and expensive to be of any real use at present. There will be a time in the future when that may not be the case but it isn't here yet.

You're just a hopeless shill. And sure you can't be too bothered with this, but yet here you are again following me around. You are nothing more than a pathetic representation of what this and hopefully this next generation will end.

There you go... once again you prove that you cannot enter into any sort of debate without accusing me of following you around or being a shill, and then throwing insults my way.

The truth is in your own posts... You always following my posts. Anyone can see it. So stop playing the victim and grow up. If you can't take it get out and stop with the implications that you are being picked on. It's childish and only shows your own lack of substance. And now since your definition of "debate" is going nowhere I will end this as with every thread you follow me in you just keep the tiresome back and forth going and going while accomplishing nothing. Hope you got the attention you craved.

Most of my responses follow yours, that's true. I get tired of repeating myself for you, but as you already know, I like to present a different view to the scaremongering propaganda you post. As you have displayed so often, you have little understanding of science and cannot even debate without resorting to childish insults.
I don't see myself as being picked on or a victim of anything. I was merely pointing out the fact that you cannot debate without using insults. And once more I find myself responding to one of your meaningless childish posts. Far from craving attention, I'm only here to counter your craving for attention on this, the only forum where anyone takes you slightly seriously.
The bottom line has to be the fact that anyone who openly declares love for Al Gore has no place in a free and fair forum like this. Your bias is set in granite. You have no place to go. I, on the other hand, am more than willing to change my mind whenever new evidence comes along. That's the difference (well, one of them) between us, you're immobile, I'm free-thinking and open.

I wouldn't want freaks following me around here either. You especially.

I take it your new, but if Ayipis posts it odd's are its propaganda. he's posted so much BS that even if he rarely posts something worthwhile its discarded with the rest.

Well said!

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer

Another fake scientist that can be bought.

"Tobacco Industry Contractor
In 1993, Singer collaborated with Tom Hockaday of Apco Associates to draft an article on "junk science" intended for publication. Apco Associates was the PR firm hired to organize and direct The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition for Philip Morris. Hockaday reported on his work with Singer to Ellen Merlo, Senior Vice President of Corporate Affairs at Philip Morris.[14]

In 1994, Singer was Chief Reviewer of the report Science, economics, and environmental policy: a critical examination published by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution (AdTI). This was all part of an attack on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency funded by the Tobacco Institute over a risk assessment on environmental tobacco smoke. [15] At that time, Mr. Singer was a Senior Fellow with AdTI.[16]

"The report's principal reviewer, Dr. Fred Singer, was involved with the International Center for a Scientific Ecology, a group that was considered important in Philip Morris' plans to create a group in Europe similar to The Advancement for Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), as discussed by Ong and Glantz. He was also on a tobacco industry list of people who could write op-ed pieces on "junk science," defending the industry's views.39" [17]

In 1995, as President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (a think tank based in Fairfax, Virginia) S. Fred Singer was involved in launching a publicity campaign about "The Top Five Environmental Myths of 1995," a list that included the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's conclusion that secondhand tobacco smoke is a human carcinogen. Shandwick, a public relations agency working for British American Tobacco, pitched the "Top Five Myths" list idea to Singer to minimize the appearance of tobacco industry involvement in orchestrating criticism of the EPA. The "Top Five Environmental Myths" list packaged EPA's secondhand smoke ruling with other topics like global warming and radon gas, to help minimize the appearance of tobacco industry involvement in the effort. According to a 1996 BAT memo describing the arrangement, Singer agreed to an "aggressive media interview schedule" organized by Shandwick to help publicize his criticism of EPA's conclusions.[18]

Oil Industry Contractor
In a September 24, 1993, sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer stated that he had two meetings with Robert Balling in Pheonix for which his expenses were re-imbursed. Singer believed the the funding, which he received from Balling, originated from the Western Fuels Association.[19] Singer also admitted to working as a consultant on approximately half a dozen occasions for the Global Climate Coalition and that payments to him came either from the firm of John Shlaes, the coalition's director or the PR firm, E. Bruce Harrison, which worked for the coalition.[20] He also stated that he had undertaken consulting work on "perhaps a dozen or so" energy companies. This included work on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell, Sun, Unocal, the Electric Power Research Institute, Florida Power and the American Gas Association.[21]

In February 2001, Ronald Collins from the Center for Science in the Public Interest chided a Washington Post for citing Singer but not disclosing his consulting work. "Although The Post's readers were told of some of Mr. Singer's more impressive credentials, they were not informed that he has served as a consultant to Exxon, Shell, Unocal, Sun Oil, ARCO, Ford and GM. All of those companies, of course, have vested interests in fighting off reductions of carbon dioxide emissions. At a time when industry is buying greater influence in the scientific community, it is essential for the press to provide full disclosure," Collins wrote.[22]

However, on February 12, 2001, Singer wrote a letter to The Washington Post in which he denied receiving any oil company money in the previous 20 years when he had consulted for the oil industry. " As for full disclosure: My resume clearly states that I consulted for several oil companies on the subject of oil pricing, some 20 years ago, after publishing a monograph on the subject. My connection to oil during the past decade is as a Wesson Fellow at the Hoover Institution; the Wesson money derives from salad oil."[23]
____________

Also see:

http://www.desmogblog.com/s-fred-singer

"According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Singer has published 45+ research articles in peer-reviewed journals, mainly on the subject of climate change.

Singer and ExxonMobil
According to a January 2007 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists called "Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air" (pdf), Singer is affiliated with no less than 11 think tanks and associations that have received funding from ExxonMobil. Singer's own "Science and Environmental Policy Project" (SEPP) has received $20,000 from ExxonMobil.

Singer's affiliations include:

•President, The Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP).
•Editorial Advisory Board Member, Cato Institute.
•Advisory Board Member, American Council on Science and Health (ACSH).
•Adjunct Scholar, National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA).
•Research Fellow, Independent Institute.
•Distinguished Research Professor, Institute for Humane Studies, George Mason University.
•Former Adjunct Fellow, Frontiers of Freedom.
•Former Fellow, Hoover Institution.
•Former Fellow, Heritage Foundation.
•Former Fellow, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC).
•Editor, Global Climate Change newsletter.
•Featured Expert, the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies.
•Papers published by the Weidenbaum Center, Washington University.
•Featured Expert, Center for the New Europe (CNE).
Singer recently co-authored a global warming denial book called Unstoppable Global Warming, with Dennis Avery, a "Senior Fellow" at an organization called the Hudson Institute, a US think-tank that has received funding from ExxonMobil.

Singer and the Science and Environmental Policy Project
Fred Singer founded the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) in 1990. While engaged in activities denying the existence of man-made global warming, SEPP has received funding from numerous oil compnies including Shell, Uniroyal and ARCO as well as $20,000 from ExxonMobi since 1998.

Singer and Big Tobacco
DeSmogBlog reported last year that Singer worked with an organization challenging the claims by the US Environmental Protection Agency that second-hand tobacco smoke is bad for human health.

Singer and the "Leipzig Declaration"
The 1995 "Leipzig Declaration," was a project of Fred Singer's Science and Environmental Policy Project and a group called the European Academy of Environmental Affairs. The declaration stated: "there does not exist today a general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from rising levels of carbon dioxide."

According to SourceWatch, when a Danish journalist attempted to contact the 33 European scientists listed on the petition, 12 denied signing the petition and some had not even heard of the Leipzig Declaration. Of those that did admit to signing the letter, one was a doctor and another was an expert on flying insects. The declaration was then revised and many names were removed.

Singer and the Infamous "Oregon Petition"
The "Oregon Petition" was organized by Art Robinson and Fred Seitz. Seitz is the Chair of Fred Singer's SEPP project. It’s interesting to note that Fred Sietz was also the former medical advisor to RJ Reynolds medical research program. A 1989 Philip Morris memo stated that Seitz was: “quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice.” However, nine years later, it seems that he was “sufficiently rational” to lead the charge on Robinson’s Oregon Petition. It also seems that Seitz is still “sufficiently rational” to sit as the Chair of notorious climate change denier, Fred Singer’s, Science and Environmental Policy Project.

The Oregon Petition has been used by climate change deniers as proof that there is no scientific consensus, however they fail to note the controversy surrounding the petition itself. In April 1998, Robinson’s Oregon Institute, along with the Exxon-backed George C. Marshall Institute, co-published the infamous “Oregon Petition” claiming to have collected 17,000 signatories to a document arguing against the realities of global warming.

The petition and the documents included were all made to look like official papers from the prestigious National Academy of Science. They weren’t, and this attempt to mislead has been well-documented.

Along with the petition there was a cover letter from Dr. Fred Seitz a climate change denier (and big tobacco scientist), who over 30 years ago was the president of the National Academy of Science. Also attached to the petition was an apparent “research paper” titled: Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. The paper was made to mimic what a research paper would look like in the National Academy’s prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy journal. The authors of the paper were Robinson, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon (both oil-backed scientists) and Robinson’s son Zachary.

The petition was so misleading that the National Academy issued a news release stating that: "The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science."

Singer and the "Glacier Story"
In his May 10, 2005 Guardian column, George Monbiot uncovered a story implicating Fred Singer in the spread of misinformation on the state of the world's glaciers. An expanded version of this story made it's way into Monbiot's best selling book, Heat.

To summarize what Monbiot discovered:

Monbiot was researching climate change a couple of years ago and when he became nervous about what he thought was the manipulative nature of the “scientific debate.” Then he found a letter by the UK climate change denier David Bellamy in New Scientist magazine. Bellamy reported that “555 of all the 625 glaciers under observation by the World Glacier Monitoring Service in Zurich have been growing since 1980.”

This was an interesting – and significant – piece of information. But when Monbiot phoned the World Glacier Monitoring Service, he also found that it was, in their indelicate words, “complete bullshit.” Glaciers are retreating around the world.

Monbiot chased all over in search of a source for this information. The claim appeared dozens of times in many different locations – but all trails seemed to lead back to the website of the Science and Environmental Policy Project. That’s basically Dr. S. Fred Singer’s home page.

When people challenged Singer, he first lashed out, saying Monbiot “has been smoking something or other.” But Singer finally conceded, in March 2005, that the information had originated on his site – posted there by “former SEPP associate Candace Crandall.” Singer acknowledged that the information “appears to be incorrect and has been updated.” “Updated,” however, is different than “corrected.” You could still find the claim on his website 18 months later.

Singer also failed to mention that the bumbling former associate, Candace Crandall, is his wife."

You really shouldn't have wasted your time writing this. Using the Union of Concerned Scientists and George Monbiot as sources shows your absolute desperation. But I understand that's the position you're now in, which is why people like you, along with The Guardian and others produce propaganda like this.

That you can never refute. Just crawl back into your hole if that's the best you can do.

Continued: And no, I'm not responding to myself, I'm continuing the post from above.

http://tobaccoscam.ucsf.edu/pdf/9.6-JunkScience-YACH.pdf

They were paid off to lie about tobacco, and now the same shills are being paid off to lie about global warming/climate change to cover for the big business backers destroying the planet and our health while filling their pockets.

Whoa. All that about one scientist? Must be a pretty popular guy...

No, just corrupted.

moms gonna fix it all soon.

That, my friend, is a very good philosophy...

Exactly! Regardless of whether global warming is real/man-made, shouldn't we want to take care of our planet anyway?

well oiled machinery runs longest.

any chance we can drown The CEO of BP in crude oil?

as soon as we reduce our dependency on oil..but until then..they got us by the balls..

Then start DOING SOMETHING you paid troll instead of trotting out this tired Al Gore rhetoric because you think for some reason it matters or disproves REALITY. YOU ARE NOT CHANGING MY MIND ABOUT THE MAN by posting SEAN HANNITY BS. I tell you, all someone has to do to know the extent of ignorance in this country is come on this site. It is pathetic the level of ignorance I see here of late. Truly disappointing.

This is about an ENTIRE CORRUPTED POLITICAL SYSTEM bought and paid for by these deceptive soulless lying bastards that wouldn't have us "BY THE BALLS" IF YOU And OTHERS HAD SOME beyond your bs posts here. Thanks once again for validating why this country is in the shape it is in. And to those saying "this is no surprise" what then are we doing to change things?

This is not just a post on the Internet, this is about our children's LIVES and the very sustainaility of this planet.

I'm doing my part every day to use less than the day before.

"I tell you, all someone has to do to know the extent of ignorance in this country is come on this site. It is pathetic the level of ignorance I see here of late. "

I absolutely agree!

They took advantage of the frustration out here and used it to their advantage. The bastards.

A very shrewd move at first glance but anyone familiar with history of democracy knows, playing with the mob is worse then playing with fire, you wont just get burnt, youll get ripped to peices. The mob is always the greatest threat and that is what the tea party is, the mob. Mob rule always goes bad, even when they are just a puppet.

The mob (AKA) the tea party is going to do more damage to the republicans than the green party did to the Democrats.

Its not too difficult to manipulate stupid people... i mean seriously organized religions have been doing it for thousands of years now.

Yes but nevertheless it is a dangerous game, look at how many catholics died during the reformation and then the catholic church utilized the masses to persacute disenters during the inqusition and then many found themselves in the same chair. The mob is dangerous, and the best option is to try and keep them out of it, thats what our founding fathers did with the republic tried to keep the masses out, but the conservatives have brought them in and someday they may deeply regret it, I know the rest of the country will.

Lets hope so.

I would agree with that but today The barbarian hoards.. That you speak of are the republicans.

Just how does one vote to get it back to for the people by the people?

An astute observation... and vice versa.