EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
10,000 GM Customers Tell Auto Giant: Stop Funding Climate Deniers
General Motors, a company that has made strides to lower the carbon footprint of driving, is taking heat from 10,000 of its customers for a donation its charitable foundation made to an institute that casts doubt on climate science, according to a report from McClatchy.
The outrage stems from a leaked internal document from the rightwing Heartland Institute that was made public last month. A detailed strategy and funding memorandum, the document showed that GM had given the group $30,000 since 2010.
The campaign to press GM on their funding of a group well known for its campaign to deny global warming was organized by Forecast the Facts, an public advocacy group that has historically aimed to cast light on how meteorologists coverage of severe weather and climate change impacts public perceptions of how those phenomenon are related to man-made global warming.
The group set up a page on their website and has been posting short expressions of outrage by current and former GM customers upset by the revelations. A couple samples include:
"You're currently synonymous with the eco-friendly Chevy Volt, therefore this revelation will send a mixed message that will do maximum damage to your PR at the height of all the press you're getting for your comeback. Knock it off now, or I'm never buying another GM vehicle, even an electric." -Martin, Northville, MI
"My roots with G.M. go way back to my grandfather, Martin Menton, working for Fisher Body in the old day, & his sons followed suit, joining General Motors in their design dept., so what G.M. does is always important to me for personal reasons and as a tax payer, for economic reasons. Let's not give the anti-climate people any encouragement by contributing to their organizations! Be careful with our money & your reputation." -Cinthia, Fountain Hills, AZ
"There's very little to be lost if you believe that man has a part in global warming and it turns out down the road the he deoesn't. But being determined that global warming is a hoax and then finding out when it's too late you're wrong, will only bring disaster to you and our planet. One would think that a company like GM would be looking to the future and would be doing everything it can to ensure that the future even comes; not supporting an organization which tells you to close your eyes and pretend there's no danger that may make the future be tomorrow." -Alayna, Deer Isle, ME
According to McClatchy:
Many companies support the Heartland Institute, but Forecast the Facts focused on GM because it got taxpayers' dollars in the auto bailout, and "people really care about GM and what it stands for in American society and in the American economy," said the group's campaign director, Daniel Souweine. No taxpayer dollars went from the GM Foundation to Heartland, however.
The foundation's $15,000 annual gift in 2010, repeated in 2011, went to the Heartland Institute's general funds, not its climate program, said GM spokeswoman Carolyn Markey. Heartland also takes a free-market approach to other areas, including education, insurance and health care.
Sarah Laskow, at Grist.org, also reported on this story and was subsequently contacted by media personnel from GM. She writes:
GM got in touch to let us know that the company does not support Heartland’s position on climate change and that “the donation through GM Foundation was designated to general funds not specifically toward climate related matters.” Also that “Through the GM Foundation, we associate with and provide donations to a variety of organizations. These also include organizations that strongly support the science behind climate change.” The examples: Ceres: the World Environment Center and Global Green.
So do with that what you will. It’s clear that GM is taking this negative attention seriously enough to put the PR people on the case. I’d note that general funding is often more valuable to nonprofit organizations than funding earmarked for specific projects. It gives organizations the flexibility to do whatever they want, which in Heartland’s case included promoting climate skepticism. If the GM Foundation didn’t support the organization’s position on climate change, they could have earmarked the funding to go to a program they did believe in.
McClatchy points out the long history of Heartland's climate denial and how completely detached it is from the reality presented by the world's leading scientists:
Heartland contends that global warming has stopped, a view that's contradicted by global data and reports from many scientists, including those at NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. NOAA, for example, has reported that each of the last three decades has been warmer than the decade before.
Heartland, however, sees global warming as part of a "liberal political agenda," according to its website. It argues that warming rose mostly from natural causes and has stopped, and that the benefits of "moderate warming" will probably outweigh the costs. The organization plans to fund a K-12 curriculum saying that climate science is controversial.
Climate science research, however, overwhelmingly reports that continuing warming is driven mainly by human use of fossil fuels. One summary, from the National Academy of Sciences, said: "Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for — and in many cases is already affecting — a broad range of human and natural systems."
###
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
137 Comments so far
Show AllI am seriously stating what I have witnessed and concluded from what I have witnessed. But, yes, much is 'faked' (covered up) in the world of military science of which NASA is one part.
But, you seem to be hung up on 'faked' data. There is also 'fudged' data, ludicrous interpretations, non-reporting of findings, non-publishing of findings (not always by the scientist but by umbrella organizations), social/career pressure and even orders from superiors not to report findings...
And, the biggest of all is NO FUNDING to investigate things not deemed 'important' to elite society. So, the biggest way in which scientists contribute to the general ignorance is by creating lots of talking points while the elephant(s) in the room is studiously ignored.
Damn right, I'm hung up on faked data. Because that is absolutely the insinuation you make when you ludicrously doubt the legitimacy of NASA's infrared spectrum. In order for data like that to be wrong, it would need to be faked.
That goes for 99% percent of the climate data which professional denialists cast aspersions on - most famously, the "hockey stick" which establishes the exceptional nature of the modern warming trend. In order for it to be wrong, it has to be faked.
I'm aware that sometimes scientists are not allowed to release their findings. NOAA issued a gag-order, restraining marine biologists studying damage from BP's Gulf ecocide, which I find extremely disturbing. But it would be at another level for NOAA to impel scientists to publish faked data. That is not happening and has not happened.
And still you have related nothing to indicate you have witnessed scientists fabricating data. "Fudged" is the same as "faked," but you apparently have no experience of either. When I drill down, you seek to change the subject. The subject is faked data. It is extremely rare for scientists to publish faked data. I've never heard of a physicist publishing faked data.
>>estranged.being: "NASA is not trustworthy."<<
Do you realize that this data can be verified by the Russians, Chinese, Indians, Japanese and the Europeans if they choose to? Unless they too are in on this "scam"?
I'm not saying that NASA as a whole needs to be trusted blindly. But if you're going to look for conspiracies, I would start with all those decisions where funding was withheld or delayed, certain programs seriously handicapped by funding cuts, the mind-boggling decision to NOT have a replacement for the space shuttle even as the International Space Station is operational, the attempts to muzzle scientists like James Hansen from speaking to the public, and so on. I think that is where anyone genuinely concerned about scientific progress would start.
My first thought exactly as I consider all the imposed poverty and suffering on the planet.
Not on that page. Sorry. But scientists COULD be funded to do so much more with their time, things that are vital to a general state of health and well being. Space planes and their payload not making my list... unless it be my concern about their secret payloads and the intractable nature of the future psychotronic societies they will help maintain.
>>estranged.being: "scientists COULD be funded to do so much more with their time, things that are vital to a general state of health and well being. Space planes and their payload not making my list..."<<
I think you are NOT seeing the big picture there. I have no reason to defend the funding of the International Space Station, especially since it is not all that "international" in the first place. It is basically an elitist club that specifically excludes the Chinese and the Indians. I can even call it racist, except for the fact that Japan is part of the program.
But you are missing a more important point: having spent money and resources on the ISS, it is mind-boggling that the USA would decide to let its transportation means die down, relying only on the Russian rockets. And this when the USA is provoking Russia to no end with its missile defense insanity.
The main point is that the US establishment is prepared to wash its hands off the ISS after having spent money and resources on it, and all this without even a public debate. And all this when the military empire is expanding like crazy.
BEFORE closing down NASA's space program, I would like to see a clamp down on private initiatives on space tourism. I feel that is an abomination because it is one example of capitalist excess. The people who have money to burn on developing the technology are also those same people who have NOT paid their fair share of taxes, and that is exactly how they ended up with all those billions which they choose to invest in ventures that would satisfy their own vain little egos, and cater to other rich people's egos. Because, the vain rich always need some form of consumption that is not available to the commoner. Now that air travel is available to all commoners, the rich would like "space tourism".
I agree that people's basic needs ALWAYS should take priority over explorations of the frontiers of science. But when a clear case can be made that these basic needs can be taken care of EASILY by a better distribution of income and wealth, I would say that any society choosing to invest a little bit of its resources in exploring the frontiers of science is right to do so. Especially when there are potential and real benefits to the whole society, or even all of humanity.
But my support for space research does NOT extend to colonizing the Moon or the Mars. I think that is f*cking insane and arrogant to even talk about it, given the mess and the pollution caused in this planet, our home. And finally, I think there is a way to lead a good, peaceful, happy life without any of these things, and with very little polluting technology. Given a choice, I would opt for a life of small ecological footprint, eating healthy food and not taking more than my fair share and not threatening other people's lives. But if governments are going to spend public funds on technology anyway, I would rather see some of it go to space research than to the military.
Now you say you agree that global warming is a fact, but you previously wrote, ,,, > ("I charge that Global Warming is an invention (disinfo script) by the elite to shortcircuit more rational thinking on the subject:")...... You are "double talking" and speak with a forked tongue.
Now tell us why anyone would find it necessary to artificially melt the Arctic sea ice when the global warming you agree is a fact is doing that quite well with no help from some mad scientists or CEOs of the oil industry.
You may not be crazy, but your lack of clear reasoning is clearly obvious. And your comments here denying AGW are more than stupid. You are in effect supporting the lies of the Heartland group of corrupt and very damaging liars.
BTW, I was an aircraft accident investigator with many years of experience. The (9-11 investigation board very seriously erred with their final report.... They only considered the heat of the fuel fires and ignored the heat which would have been produced from (*burning magnesium*), which is well over 3,000 degrees F and far enough heat to melt steel beams.
Those older model 757s had tons of magnesium in aircraft components and the aluminum aircraft skin has lots of magnesium in it. In addition, the large heavy counter balance tail wieghts wer emade with DU.
The two fully loaded and fully fueled aircraft were smushed up into a massive glob of burning metal and fuel at the very heart of the buildings support beams. That is why the building finally fell.
And yes, I have seen the doctored photo of the young gal who was a passenger on one of the aircraft, standing at the opening of the building where the aircraft entered at 500 mph. Standing there waving with a perfect hairdo, white slacks with not a smudge on them and no soot or smudges on her or any wounds after being rammed into the steel interior structure of the building at 500 mph. Quite an impressive act there. Being Superwoman she should have worn her uniform and flew out of the building before it collapsed.
I am not at all surprised with your non answer to me ~~estranged being~~, and your refusal to debate the issue... It was you who asked for a debate in the first place. You may not be insane but you are ignorant, obtuse, silly and you have adequetly displayed a total lack any common sense or adult reasoning power.... Bye, I have no more time for your ignorant nonsense. Besides Aleph and Al have kicked you butt all over the screen,,, several times. You aren't smart enough to know when you've lost your goofy arguments..
You advocate Global Warming as the sole and principle cause of Arctic melting.
You advocate acceptance of the official 9/11 story.
I advocate revisiting our programmed assumptions on Global Warming. I did not say I 'accept' the Global Warming theory. I said I once did. I also said I agree that human activities have altered the environment including the climate in many (if not most) places.
He just wrote today ,,,> (" I am certainly aware that climate changes have been wrought by human activities for literally thousands of years... Now he says that he used to think so. Double talk.
He wrote in a reply to me ,,, > ("You advocate Global Warming as the sole and principle cause of Arctic melting.").... Indeed I do… That is all that is necessary for the Arctic ice to melt as rapidly as it has been doing.
He wrote in a reply to me,, > ("You advocate acceptance of the official 9/11 story.").
No, you have a serious reading comprehension disability along with your other sad lack of attributes of a sensible, reasonable and intelligent adult.
On the contrary, I wrote the final report of the 9-11 Twin Towers falling was seriously flawed... The burning aircraft fuel alone would not have brought the buildings down. They ignored the burning magnesium, tons of it., which would have melted the primary buildings steel support beams.
The official flawed report caused the conspiracy theories to begin... Love the one where the aircraft were actually flown to Wright Patterson AFB and the crews and passengers were all murdered in the top secret hanger #18.
"The two 757s that hit the buildings were remotely controlled drones loaded with explosives",,, and they even had the proper airline logos and tail numbers of the hi-jacked aircraft.... Amazing; thousands of people were in on it, including hundreds of aircraft controllers, the Arab hijackers, etc.
And an Atlas missile hit the Pentagon... It somehow reduced it's 3,000 mph+ speed to only 500 mph, just beefore zooming across the lawn and entering the building... Yep, you got it all down pat.
Go find Peter Hartlod and learn more. I'm not sure he's still on the planet he sure didn't act like he came from this one... Neither do you. .
Please re-read what I said. Though it is clear that climate changes have been wrought by human activities over thousands of years, that does not mean that Global Warming is the principle cause of the melting Arctic. Sorry, these are not interchangeable. I said climate change (and climate change does necessarily translate to global warming) is obvious. I said that I had accepted the Global Warming theory for many years as the explanation for the melting Arctic and other disasters... AND, that I NO LONGER accept Global Warming as the principle cause for the melting of the Arctic.
There is no double speak on my part, just an inability to read on yours!
So what else is the principal cause for the melting of the Arctic ice? It's a simple question.
We can't know anything about the true cause of Arctic melting, because it's a top secret operation, don't you know?
We know the true cause couldn't possibly be greenhouse warming, though no particular objections to the most simple explanation are offered, beyond broad aspersions cast on the credibility of all researchers. You can ask: Is atmospheric CO2 not increasing? Is the global mean temperature not rising? The answer you get back is that all scientists are whores.
So on the one hand, we have nothing specific about what's wrong with the AGW explanation. But that's balanced out by an absolute lack of information about the alternative explanation. Someone has figured out a way to keep estranged from any knowledge about anything, for the duration. The perpetual ignorance strategy.
Just for kicks, if we consider the possibility of a secret program to melt the Arctic, how much energy would this technology require? If you take the actual Earth with its energy imbalance of 0.6 W/m2* as a reference point, we can roughly estimate that 10% of that extra energy hits the Arctic (the Sun hits the Arctic at an angle, but that's canceled out by polar amplification). The sum works out to 30 million megawatts - which might seem feasible until you realize this number is double the entire worldwide rate of energy consumption.
* James Hansen: Why I Must Speak Out About Climate Change
That was unsurprisingly uninformative.
Any clue how this classified technology marshals twice as much energy as worldwide consumption? Is there a miraculous energy-production technology we haven't been told about?
In any case, we are already in agreement on two of the key issues.
1) Was a crime committed? We agree there was/is; namely, the melting of the Arctic. 2) Would the global elite employ any means available to get access to and control over more resources? We agree they would and do. 3) Do they have (have they had) the means available to commit this crime?
This is where we disagree and only because of lack of transparency on the part of the military and their corporate and academic partners. But, once you know it is feasible to melt the Arctic, you will not doubt that the Arctic is being intentionally melted by an elite group with traditional interests.
1) Psychotronic weapons have been sought and developed over at least the past several decades. Even government sources admit this.
2) Some applications have been admitted such as the use of white noise prior to invading Iraq two decades ago.
3) Almost ALL investigations into psychotronic capabilities are classified. MKUltra being just one program in a very large field.
Denial on either of these topics, psychotronic weapons and the possibility that Global Warming is the 'plausible' cover up story for the intentional heating of the Arctic, serves no one except those who would control you and your world. Sometimes reason begins with courage, the courage to ask really frightening questions.
If I read you correctly, you're saying there indeed is a mind-control beam in play here. But I'm not clear on whether it's controlling me or you. If the former, do you think I could ameliorate the beam's effects if I also donned a tinfoil hat? If the latter, perhaps your tinfoil hat is enhancing the beam's effectiveness, and you should consider removing it.
I'm way out of my depth in all this Rod Serling stuff. If this is where "reason begins with courage," then I'm an irrational coward.
http://ppjg.me/2009/02/05/psychotronic-weapons/
Too bad you are so uninformed about the development of these systems and the huge human toll it involves. Attitude born of ignorance is not cute to me. Bye.
From your citation:
One little problem with the technology, though. There is no "auditory sense" of electromagnetic waves, not in any organism. With eyes, we can see visible light, high in the electromagnetic spectrum. Just below that is the infrared part (involved in the greenhouse effect), which is invisible - along with all the slower frequencies to follow. There are snakes which can see some of the infrared spectrum, because their body temperature is lower than that of their prey. It's probably physically impossible for an organism to perceive slower electromagnetic frequencies, or else something in Nature would have evolved a way to do it. Our ears are sensitive to sound waves (nothing to do with electromagnetic waves).
In order to be truly skeptical, there needs to be some rigorous standard for sifting the plausible from the implausible. Humans are highly skilled in the art of fooling ourselves. The point of scientific rigor is to apply some methodology to the question of what qualifies as true (or likely). Once critical thinking is dispensed with, learning and discovery are impossible - because the only ideas which can penetrate are those with which one already agrees. In the absence of critical thinking, there is nothing too absurd to believe.
http://www.constitution.org/abus/mkt/uncom.htm
search: 'Voice to Skull Dr. Frey' click on 'Synthetic Telepathy' pdf for a description of the development of the technology.
Next thing we will be hearing is the astranouts never went to the moon. Walt Disney Corp filmed the entire series of moon landings at area 51 in Nevada.
A traitor? What is a non-citizen who propagates secrets of the US police-military-industrial complex, a terrorist?
Why should the carbon footprint of US military activities be classified? Don't taxpayers have a right to know what their money is paying for?
estranged being,
There are some very interesting materials out there on microwave weaponization. From a 1998 US Army report, declassified in response to an FOIA request in 2006:
The ear is not really hearing the microwave directly, only the well-known thermal effect of microwave, in pulse form, on the auditory apparatus. I would not doubt that using this phenomenon to inflict pain somehow is an object of intense research by the sadists in the US police-military-industrial complex.
The microwave auditory effect is basically a little drum which can be remotely banged on. If the vibration could be modulated finely enough to simulate speech, it could be used to freak people out by putting a voice inside their head. But, really, subliminal programming? Synthetic telepathy?
It's fascinating that you find these fairy tales so convincing, while you harbor deep suspicions of the basic physical laws comprising the greenhouse effect. The scientific approach is to start with the evidence, and see which conclusions the evidence leads to. When you go backwards from a conclusion to whatever evidence you can find to support it, you wind up with weird doctrines.
I am not refuting physical laws. I am refuting YOUR BLIND ACCEPTANCE of a particular INTERPRETATION.
"The scientific approach is to start with the evidence, and see which conclusions the evidence leads to."
Yes, and that does not mean abandoning reason or the lessons of history. You have, like our society in general, let others do your thinking. Pretty much always leads to error.
"When you go backwards from a conclusion to whatever evidence you can find to support it, you wind up with weird doctrines."
Exactly. You have accepted a theory and everything is rejected or accepted based upon your religious adherence to it... and thus, you accept nonsense and make of yourself a gullible fool, historically speaking.
Actual knowledge of physical laws may be used to explain how things work - such understanding of basic mechanisms, performing one's own experiments with physical equations to test alternative explanations, is the exact opposite of religion.
A blind conviction that the only real knowledge belongs to those privy to top-secret schemes may only be used to explain the lack of any coherent explanation - a self-perpetuating lack of understanding which is identical to the intellectual rut of religious faith. You put yourself in the same position, relative to the schemers you imbue with infinite competence, as polytheists stand in relation to their pantheon of inscrutable gods. From your superstitious orientation, actual knowledge is impossible. It's gullible to suggest that thermodynamic limitations apply to the gods you worship.