Big Ol' Smitty

bigolsmitty's quest in search of a credible anti-global warming group continues in the third installment of "Anti-Global Warming Groups Xposed~!" The George C. Marshall Institue The George C. Marshall Institute (GMI) is a 501©(3) non-profit organization founded in 1984. The Institute's mission is to "encourage the use of sound science in making public policy about important issues for which science and technology are major considerations." The "program emphasizes issues in national security and the environment." source: GCM Inst. Funding The Institute received $5,577,803 in 77 separate grants from only five foundations between 1985 and 2001: The Earhart Foundation* John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.* Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation* Scaife Foundations (Sarah Mellon Scaife, Carthage)* *denotes right-wing think tank funder During 2002, ExxonMobil donated $90,000 to the Institute, $80,000 of which was for the "Global Climate Change Program". (http://www2.exxonmobil.com/files/corporate/public_policy1.pdf) SEPP Several people of GMI are also involved in the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP): Bruce N. Ames, Board of Science Advisors Charles Gelman, Board of Directors William A. Nierenberg, Board of Science Advisors Frederick Seitz, Chairman Chauncey Starr, Board of Science Advisors source: sourcewatch

Funny note on this report. The American report was released with tons of classified portions blacked out. However, the whizzes released it as a .pdf file, so all you have to do is save it as a text file and you can read all the classified stuff (not that it's interesting). http://www.corriere.it/Media/Documenti/Classified.pdf

I'm not a scientist, so I can't really argue the case for global warming very well. However, I can point out that the people presenting the case for global warming (NASA, the EPA, the NOAA, the MIT Joint Program on the Science & Policy of Global Change, et al) tend to be more credible than those presenting the case against it (weathermen, a tobacco lobbyist, the oil industry, you, Sun Myung Moon, et al). And I'm sure their critiques could be refuted by someone who actually, unlike me, has a background in science. Like NASA, for example.

So worldy! Yet you still use the word fag. They're all English words (derived from French). (see American Heritage Dictionary)

LessonInMachismo--raconteur par excellence.

In our second installment "Anti-Global Warming Groups Xposed~!", bigolsmitty goes undercover at The Science & Environmental Policy Project--an organization skeptical about ozone depletion and global warming. The Leader "... S. Fred Singer, acknowledged during a 1994 appearance on the television program Nightline that he had received funding from Exxon, Shell, Unocal and ARCO. He did not deny receiving funding on a number of occasions from the Rev. Sun Myung Moon." Source: sourcewatch On the SEPP's global warming skeptic Leipzig declaration of 1995: "The declarations have been widely cited by conservative voices in the "sound science" movement. It has been cited by Fred Singer in editorial columns appearing in hundreds of conservative websites and major publications, including The Wall Street Journal, Miami Herald, Detroit News, Chicago Tribune, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Memphis Commercial-Appeal, Seattle Times, and Orange County Register. Jeff Jacoby, a columnist with the Boston Globe, describes the signers of the Leipzig Declaration as "climate scientists" that "include prominent scholars." The Heritage Foundation calls them "noted scientists," as do conservative think tanks such as Citizens for a Sound Economy, the Heartland Institute, and Australia's Institute for Public Affairs. Both the Leipzig Declaration and Frederick Seitz's Oregon Petition have been quoted as authoritative sources during deliberations in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives." However... "According to the SEPP website, there were 79 signatures to the 1995 declaration, including Frederick Seitz: the current SEPP chair. The signature list was last updated on July 16, 1996. Of these 79, 33 failed to respond when the SEPP asked them to sign the 1997 declaration. The SEPP calls the signatories "nearly 100 climate experts". The signatures to the 1995 declaration were disputed by David Olinger of the St. Petersburg Times. In an article on July 29, 1996, he revealed that many signers, including Chauncey Starr, Robert Balling, and Patrick Michaels, have received funding from the oil industry, while others had no scientific training or could not be identified. The 1995 declarations begins: "As scientists, we are intensely interested in the possibility that human activities may affect the global climate". However, those identified as scientists and climate experts include at least ten weather presenters, including Dick Groeber of Dick's Weather Service in Springfield, Ohio. Groeber, who had not completed a university degree, labelled himself a scientist by virtue of his thirty to forty years of self-study. In any case, it is difficult to accurately evaluate the list of signatures of the 1995 declaration, as the SEPP website provides no additional details about them except for their university, if they are professors." Source: answers.com (emphasis mine) So conservative think tanks and congressmen are basing their policy toward climate change on the opinions of weathermen, the oil industry (of course), and Sun Myung Moon. Beautiful.

See Machismo, LessonIn--other thread.

Well, that *is* what I was implying, you sly dog, you. Even something THAT small? Wait, how do I know it's small? It's only funny when kkk does it.

You silly goose. One of these days I'm gonna convert you into a dirty Birkenstock wearing latte sipping Volvo driver.* *although I do none of these things

Yes. Yes you should.

NOOOOOOOOO!

"Even." You say it as if Time is this bastion of conservative journalism. Actually TIME fellates her in the article, I believe.

Well, that *is* what I was implying, you sly dog, you.

Mike will find a way to suck anything. Trust me. J/K MIKE I STILL <3 U!

Part 1 of bigolsmitty's "Anti-Global Warming Groups Xposed~!" Junkscience.com Steven J. Milloy is the publisher of JunkScience.com and CSRwatch.com; an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute and the National Center for Policy Analysis; and a columnist for FoxNews.com and the New York Sun. Milloy was also a member of the judging panel for the 2004 American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Journalism Awards: Online Category. Mr. Milloy is also an adviser to the Free Enterprise Action Fund (www.FreeEnterpriseActionFund.com). Source: junkscience.com Prior to launching the JunkScience.com, Milloy worked for Jim Tozzi's Multinational Business Services, the Philip Morris tobacco company's primary lobbyist in Washington with respect to the issue of secondhand cigarette smoke. He subsequently went to work for The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), a Philip Morris front group created by the PR firm of APCO Worldwide. Although Milloy frequently represent himself as an expert on scientific matters, he is not a scientist himself. He holds a bachelor's degree in Natural Sciences, a law degree and a master's degree in biostatistics. He has never published original research in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Moreover, he has made scientific claims himself that have no basis in actual research. Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, for example, he claimed that greater use of asbestos insulation in the World Trade Towers would have delayed their collapse "by up to four hours." In reality, there is no scientific basis for claiming that asbestos would have delayed their collapse by even a second, let alone four hours. Source: sourcewatch That's some serious SIUNTIFIC CRIDINSHULZ~!

Stinkin NASA hippie scientists. This is ALREADY being debunked by the Coolidge Institute, the Scaife Consortium, & republiblogusa.com AS WE SPEAK.

We can't let terriers and rogue nations hold this board hostile or hold our allies hostile.

And the problem with Republicism is... Democrats... WTF is Republicism? KKK, sometimes I misunderestimate your intelligence.

That's not libertarianism. That's objectivism. Ayn Rand was a staunch libertarian and libertarianism is the political ideology of objectivists. Incorrect. Objectivism is NOT libertarian. Don't confuse us with those whackos Most objectivists would hold libertarian political views. No?

That's not libertarianism. That's objectivism. Ayn Rand was a staunch libertarian and libertarianism is the political ideology of objectivists. Rand herself said that objectivism/-ists, and libertarianism/-ians are different beasts. Okay. All I was really trying to say was that the books suck.

And "mainline" or "oldline" Protestantism is dying. Fast. Evangelicalism is growing steadily and the Southern Baptists are the single largest Protestant denomination in the US. Pentecostalism is also growing quite rapidly. How the hell is Pentecostalism growing? I thought that was an 80s fad not unlike Lycra and Duran Duran. It's the fastest growing segment of Christianity worldwide. http://atheism.about.com/b/a/034957.htm I'm not sure if it's growing quite as rapidly in the US, though.

But the polls are favoring the Democrats on this issue.

That's not libertarianism. That's objectivism. Ayn Rand was a staunch libertarian and libertarianism is the political ideology of objectivists.

-3.5 -4.41 left/libertarian Gandhi, mufuckaz Anybody close to Saddam or Robert Mugabe?

Having read two crappy Ayn Rand books, libertarianism has lost its sheen.