• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Donor's Trust - Billionaire Tax-Breaks to Fight Climate Change Opinion

There's an easy way for non-scientists to tell fact from opinion. If an article is published in a scientific journal, or if it supplies references to such articles in order to support its points, then the article is factual. If it doesn't, then it is opinion.

Sadly, almost everything that you post is politically motivated opinion, Jack, not fact.

A very high percentage link to peer-reviewed research. You are misrepresenting to make yourself feel good.
 
Michael Mann has already had death threats and attempts to associate him with paedophilia from you lot. Now you're attempting to paint him as a misogynist.

You really should be ashamed of yourself.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
 
Michael Mann has done no crime; he has merely reported inconvenient facts.

And for that he is being hounded with lies and smears. Now that really is disgusting.

New thread started. Michael Mann lied to claim he was a Nobel Laureate.
 
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

Interesting that you should point out immoralities of Michael Mann, when your hero, the High-Schooler, Watts, flew over residences of Climatologists to look for proof of renewable energy, in an effort to smear them. Later, one of the Climatologists stated that he purchases the more-expensive renewable option from his Utility.

The Fossil-Fuel Industry/Watts/Curry machine are in a No-Holds-Barred heavily financed attack mode, and you are part of it.
 
There's an easy way for non-scientists to tell fact from opinion. If an article is published in a scientific journal, or if it supplies references to such articles in order to support its points, then the article is factual. If it doesn't, then it is opinion.

Sadly, almost everything that you post is politically motivated opinion, Jack, not fact.

That's an opinion not based in fact.
 
That's an opinion not based in fact.

That depends on whether you get your scientific news from blogs or from organizations like the IPCC, NOAA, NASA and the National Academy of Scientists.
 
That depends on whether you get your scientific news from blogs or from organizations like the IPCC, NOAA, NASA and the National Academy of Scientists.

It's an opinion. I get my scientific news from many sources and attempt to sort the wheat from the chaff. The sources you mention are not always the wheat.
 
It's an opinion. I get my scientific news from many sources and attempt to sort the wheat from the chaff. The sources you mention are not always the wheat.

OK, why don't you point out which scientific organizations are more reputable than the four I mentioned?
 
Michael Mann has done no crime; he has merely reported inconvenient facts.

And for that he is being hounded with lies and smears. Now that really is disgusting.

They prefer the High-Schooler, Watts, to the phD Michael Mann.
MichaelMann.jpg
 
What’s wrong with democracy? I know that The Guardian has an anti American and especially anti conservative bend and like to give things that kind of spin. But really, now. What’s wrong with citizens putting their money, where there mouthes are?

Nothing. What's suspicious is that they want to hide what they are investing in. And calling a handful of billionaires who are heavily invested in fossil fuel companies "citizens" is disingenuous.
 
Nothing. What's suspicious is that they want to hide what they are investing in. And calling a handful of billionaires who are heavily invested in fossil fuel companies "citizens" is disingenuous.

All remain citizens regardless of their stock portfolios.
 
All remain citizens regardless of their stock portfolios.

True, but contrary to the SCOTUS constructs of "personhood", corporations are not people.

I don't care if they buy ad space for their views or fund groups to promote them, I just want to know who is paying for the ads & how much they are shelling out. If they aren't embarrassed by their agenda, they should be proud of it. Most advertisers want to be noticed. These people and groups go to a lot of effort to remain anonymous. Once you connect the dots, the reason they want to remain anonymous is pretty clear.
 
True, but contrary to the SCOTUS constructs of "personhood", corporations are not people.

I don't care if they buy ad space for their views or fund groups to promote them, I just want to know who is paying for the ads & how much they are shelling out. If they aren't embarrassed by their agenda, they should be proud of it. Most advertisers want to be noticed. These people and groups go to a lot of effort to remain anonymous. Once you connect the dots, the reason they want to remain anonymous is pretty clear.

The corporate "personhood" claim is a gross distortion and oversimplification.
Many people, for many reasons, prefer to keep their political and policy preferences private. This often has to do with avoiding retribution or harassment. When we vote we have a secret ballot.
 
The corporate "personhood" claim is a gross distortion and oversimplification.
Many people, for many reasons, prefer to keep their political and policy preferences private. This often has to do with avoiding retribution or harassment. When we vote we have a secret ballot.

Actually your vote is public record:
http://www.news-press.com/story/new...iduals-voting-history-public-record/18313485/

You're right, they don't want people to know what they are doing. But, people have a right to know who's behind the "science" and "news" they are getting, don't you agree?
 
Of course you don't see it ( liberals typically are very poor at introspection), but these folks know something that's glaringly obvious to people outside the bubble. Liberals control most scientific journals and their political bias gets in the way of them sticking to science.

And you have scientific proof of this?

Look, when I see horse**** propaganda like that I know whatever is being sold is bull****. I learned these things at the mid way as a child, issue a lie, use it to build a false premise and create whatever you need.

It's patently obvious in a growing way that it is the right that are close minded, judgemental and uninformed. You would not need to demean hundreds of people with a different ideology than you to make your point if you had one.

Finally, by opening your post with a comment that you could NOT possibly ever prove, an "alternate universe fact" tells me you have no information at all as your world view is blinded by bigotry.

Go on hating your fellow Americans. It's proven so useful to you these last 50 years
 
Actually your vote is public record:
An individual's voting history is public record

You're right, they don't want people to know what they are doing. But, people have a right to know who's behind the "science" and "news" they are getting, don't you agree?

It is a public record whether I voted. It is a secret for whom I voted.
And no, people don't have a right to know what causes I or anyone choose to support.
 
It is a public record whether I voted. It is a secret for whom I voted.
And no, people don't have a right to know what causes I or anyone choose to support.

That's not what he said. You avoided the question.

"But, people have a right to know who's behind the "science" and "news" they are getting, don't you agree?"
 
While money spent by the Koch Foundation and Exxon, to fight Climate Change science, has gone down in recent years, the money from Donor's Trust has skyrocketed. Sound suspicious - it should.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network

Conservative billionaires used a secretive funding route to channel nearly $120m (£77m) to more than 100 groups casting doubt about the science behind climate change, the Guardian has learned.

The funds, doled out between 2002 and 2010, helped build a vast network of thinktanks and activist groups working to a single purpose: to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a highly polarising "wedge issue" for hardcore conservatives.


View attachment 67225544

Want some cheese with that whine?

Climate Change has already been lost from real science and made political by liberals. Do you expect no blowback?
 
What’s wrong with democracy? I know that The Guardian has an anti American and especially anti conservative bend and like to give things that kind of spin. But really, now. What’s wrong with citizens putting their money, where there mouthes are?

Because liberals can't confiscate it.
 
If the Donors Trust were interested in facts, then it would be funding scientific research and publishing it in scientific journals. That is how facts are determined: though research and evidence, not rhetoric. But the Donors Trust is not interested in facts, preferring instead to fund think-tanks and activist groups whose mission is not the finding of facts, but propaganda aimed at sowing doubt about facts.

It is exactly the same approach as that taken by the tobacco industry as evidence accumulated that smoking damages health: the use of propaganda to suppress and discredit actual research. It is utterly reprehensible behaviour.

Donors Trust recognized there are poeple who want to help the fight agaist activist science. they provide a way to do so.

What is wrong with people having such opportunities to put their money places they believe in or support?
 
Proof? I think the links to tobacco's death inducing properties are well established.

Nobody disagrees when the science shows it.

Are you improperly arguing against the second hand smoke study again?
 
Of course I don't think it's nonsense.
This thread is about polemics, not science.

That's all alarmists have. The actual science does not support their position.
 
Back
Top Bottom