But maybe instead of asking what planet these deniers come from, a different question should be asked--maybe something along the lines of "Who (or which organization) is funding these people?"
After all, they have conferences. They have to travel. They publish magazines & maintain websites. So who pays the bills?
You'll be shocked (shocked!) to learn that (from the Center for Media and Democracy):
An article in the Independent links funding for the "2008 International Conference on Climate Change" held in New York earlier this month to tobacco and oil companies. As an earlier Spin noted, the global warming skeptics conference was organized by the Heartland Institute think tank. Heartland has opposed scientific consensus on both secondhand tobacco smoke and climate change. Heartland claims on its website that no energy industry money was used to support the conference, but did not address tobacco industry funding. Still, a substantial number of conference sponsors -- including the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Independent Institute, Americans for Tax Reform, Frontiers of Freedom and Citizens' Alliance for Responsible Energy -- have received support from energy or tobacco companies, or both. The Heartland Institute itself has received funding from Exxon and Philip Morris.Whoops. Ya may want to think about this the next time you fill/light up.
7 comments:
To clear up some things about the above postiing.
* The Heartland Institute has made it clear that no corporate funds at all were used to help pay for the conference. It was entirely financed by individuals and foundations with no financial interest in the subject of global warming.
* All 50 cosponsors of the conference are listed in the program for the event, none of them is a corporation, and none of them made a financial contribution toward the event, so their funding is irrelevant. Cosponsors were asked to help promote the event (on their web sites and in mailings to their members) in exchange for limited numbers of free tickets, a standard cosponsorship arrangement for conferences of this kind.
* The Heartland Institute receives about 16% of its total income from corporations, the rest comes from individuals and foundations. No one corporation has EVER contributed more than 5% of Heartland’s annual budget. All energy companies COMBINED in 2007 gave less than 5% of the organization’s total budget. ExxonMobil hasn’t contributed since 2006. If funding determines a think tank’s perspective, then you might expect Heartland to be 95% in favor of global warming alarmism!
* Heartland’s alleged “links” to tobacco and oil companies are part of a smear campaign against it and other conservative and libertarian think tanks in the U.S., being waged by a few liberal front groups. The truth is that Heartland, like virtually all other think tanks and advocacy groups, accepts gifts from corporations, but it has policies in place that ensure the integrity of its research. Those policies are plainly posted on its Web site. Funding from oil and tobacco companies has never amounted to more than 5% of Heartland’s budget, and Heartland has never took positions on oil or tobacco issues at odds with its stated mission and perspective. No oil or tobacco executives have ever worked for The Heartland Institute, and none currently serve on its Board of Directors. This too is plainly posted on Heartland’s Web site.
* The Heartland Institute has been operating for 24 years, has 2,700 donors and supporters, and has been publishing books, policy studies, and holding conferences on global warming for 15 years. It is a credible and respected voice in the debate. The way some reporters attempt to portray Heartland because it dares to voice a “skeptical” perspective on climate change speaks volumes about media bias.
Me troll!
So conferences financed in part by "tobacco and oil companies" are bad, but websites financed by anti-conservative sites like Media Matters are gospel and indisputable?
Attack the messenger, never the message.
a cursory review of the media matters site would reveal that there are audio/video/text transcripts of each event cited there...not sure what that has to do with who finances media matters' website...after all, media matters is only repeating what was said (clearly documented) by each radio/tv/newspaper celebrity, author, etc.
The point of this post (I think) is that who funds what does matter, but content doesn't. And media matters, which is funded by anti-Bush/ anti-conservative peoples, is quick to distort and inflame. Which is, of course, its right. Free speech rules!
Meanwhile, bundle up.
oops .. forgot text
WXIT goes boom
Post a Comment