Leaked documents expose the way a well funded libertarian think tank goes about spreading anti climate change propaganda.
QuoteThe inner workings of a libertarian thinktank working to discredit the established science on climate change have been exposed by a leak of confidential documents detailing its strategy and fundraising networks.
DeSmogBlog, which broke the story, said it had received the confidential documents from an "insider" at the Heartland Institute, which is based in Chicago. The blog monitors industry efforts to discredit climate science.
The scheme includes spending $100,000 for spreading the message in K-12 schools that "the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain - two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science", the documents said.
It was not possible to immediately verify the authenticity of the documents, although Heartland issued a statement on Wednesday claiming at least one document was fake, and that it was the victim of theft and forgery. However, Anthony Watts, a weathercaster who runs one of the most prominent anti-science blogs, Watts Up With That?, acknowledged Heartland was helping him with $90,000 for a new project. He added: "They do not regularly fund me nor (sic) my WUWT website, I take no salary from them of any kind."
http://m.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/15/leak-exposes-heartland-institute-climate?cat=environment&type=article
Besides short term wealth, what exactly do these groups and the various corporations bankrolling them hope to accomplish? It's like umbrella corp making a bunch of zombies. How does that help them or anyone in the long run? I mean, if climate change is an actual phenomenon, which it seems to be, then what they are doing is entirely destructive and is likely to get people killed, including them.
Quote from: Wolfgang Absolutus on February 17, 2012, 12:14:53 PM
Besides short term wealth, what exactly do these groups and the various corporations bankrolling them hope to accomplish? It's like umbrella corp making a bunch of zombies. How does that help them or anyone in the long run? I mean, if climate change is an actual phenomenon, which it seems to be, then what they are doing is entirely destructive and is likely to get people killed, including them.
Short term wealth is the name of the game these days, Wolfgang. The general assumption will be that they can squeeze profits out of today, and someone else will sort out any problems tomorrow. Why should they care? They'll have enough money to ensure that they and theirs are safe, secure, and can enjoy the best whatever shape tomorrow takes. That's assuming that the issues even come to impact them in their own lifetimes. For a lot of people, this is still something that seems a long, long way off. Not their problem.
Quotedissuading teachers from teaching science
Quotedissuading teachers from teaching science
Quotedissuading teachers from teaching science
I'm sure that is very effective. Schools usually are very sensitive to any appearances of controversy, whether they are well grounded or not, so they will do just about anything to avoid that.
Christian apocalypse cheerleaders.
My friend is a pastor and he occasionally has to remind people that god in fact does not think that a nuclear holocaust is something that jesus would approve of.
It's absurd that they're still pushing the "scientists are uncertain" meme? This is a Frank Luntz (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,30602.msg1108495.html#msg1108495) creation from the mid 90s that got out of control.
Frank Luntz doesn't even support it anymore! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Yz8UwRsWPA - they're recycling 7 year old talking points. He says, "It's unfair to take a document that was written in 1998 and apply it in 2006."
It really underscores the lasting power of good communication.
It seems some of it is having an impact. I'm trolling a sceptic on fb now and he unironically used the sources mentioned to justify his pov.
Also thankfully it does say schools are the most hesitant to change their tune.i know that I personally pussyfoot around certain topics if there's a chance of concern. Evolution etc.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 17, 2012, 01:23:33 PM
Quotedissuading teachers from teaching science
Quotedissuading teachers from teaching science
Quotedissuading teachers from teaching science
It is hilarious/terrible how not at all original that particular plan is.
True. Not too long ago they would've been dissuaded by being roasted alive on a spit.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 17, 2012, 01:23:33 PM
Quotedissuading teachers from teaching science
Quotedissuading teachers from teaching science
Quotedissuading teachers from teaching science
Welcome to the 21st Century, LMNO. Have an iphone.
Quote from: What's-His-Name? on February 18, 2012, 11:15:32 AM
True. Not too long ago they would've been dissuaded by being roasted alive on a spit.
I bet that was pretty effective.
Actually dealing with climate change requires systemic change. Higher fuel economy, more recycling, and more efficient use of resources is not enough in itself. This is something which Climate change denialists realize, claiming that climate change is a communist conspiracy because many of the necessary changes require societal coordination on a large scale. People who accept Climate change as an established fact often don't consider the implications that arise if we accept even the moderate levels of alarm about the situation that are essentially the general consensus. To stave off climate change is going to require a major change in the American lifestyle and that is something that is strongly opposed by many people.
Warning to Oysters: Babylon Horuv is a snuff porn freak, and everything he says and does is done in an attempt to eventually get you into a voice chat room so you can make choking noises while he spanks it.
Just so you know.
Yeah thats the shitty part. Everyone thinks in the short term and doesnt want to be inconvenienced now. Iirc kai pointed out that home recycling is essentially useless even if everyone does it since its such a small percentage of the problem.
Quote from: Twid, not Billy. on February 18, 2012, 08:01:43 PM
Yeah thats the shitty part. Everyone thinks in the short term and doesnt want to be inconvenienced now. Iirc kai pointed out that home recycling is essentially useless even if everyone does it since its such a small percentage of the problem.
Fewer people is an excellent starting point.
This is true. My general starting point with that is lunar and martian colonization.
Quote from: Twid, not Billy. on February 18, 2012, 08:01:43 PM
Yeah thats the shitty part. Everyone thinks in the short term and doesnt want to be inconvenienced now. Iirc kai pointed out that home recycling is essentially useless even if everyone does it since its such a small percentage of the problem.
I'm trying to find some documents that back that up, but I'm not finding anything that indicates that it lacks an environmental benefit, outside of the context of reducing global warming. Post-consumer waste is an enormous problem.
Quote from: Nigel on February 18, 2012, 09:49:12 PM
Quote from: Twid, not Billy. on February 18, 2012, 08:01:43 PM
Yeah thats the shitty part. Everyone thinks in the short term and doesnt want to be inconvenienced now. Iirc kai pointed out that home recycling is essentially useless even if everyone does it since its such a small percentage of the problem.
I'm trying to find some documents that back that up, but I'm not finding anything that indicates that it lacks an environmental benefit, outside of the context of reducing global warming. Post-consumer waste is an enormous problem.
I can say with authority that recycling paper causes way more harm than good.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 18, 2012, 09:51:32 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 18, 2012, 09:49:12 PM
Quote from: Twid, not Billy. on February 18, 2012, 08:01:43 PM
Yeah thats the shitty part. Everyone thinks in the short term and doesnt want to be inconvenienced now. Iirc kai pointed out that home recycling is essentially useless even if everyone does it since its such a small percentage of the problem.
I'm trying to find some documents that back that up, but I'm not finding anything that indicates that it lacks an environmental benefit, outside of the context of reducing global warming. Post-consumer waste is an enormous problem.
I can say with authority that recycling paper causes way more harm than good.
Expand?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 18, 2012, 09:51:32 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 18, 2012, 09:49:12 PM
Quote from: Twid, not Billy. on February 18, 2012, 08:01:43 PM
Yeah thats the shitty part. Everyone thinks in the short term and doesnt want to be inconvenienced now. Iirc kai pointed out that home recycling is essentially useless even if everyone does it since its such a small percentage of the problem.
I'm trying to find some documents that back that up, but I'm not finding anything that indicates that it lacks an environmental benefit, outside of the context of reducing global warming. Post-consumer waste is an enormous problem.
I can say with authority that recycling paper causes way more harm than good.
I don't know about "way" more harm, but recycling it into paper products rather than, say, energy products is inefficient, and saves trees, but wastes fossil fuels.
This article was interesting: http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info:doi/10.1289/ehp.951031006
It was also a little overly simplistic and kind of ignored some upstream factors, but it seemed not a bad overview.
My main concern with recycling is that it seems to encourage the use of disposable products, rather than discouraging them. People think they can just recycle that paper cup or plastic bottle and they're being environmentally friendly, while the reality is that it's still a negative impact compared to re-using.
Roger chokes better than almost anyone
That being said, Recycle is the easiest part of Reduce, Reuse Recycle to focus on. It doesn't cut into our consumer society. It doesn't require any real change in lifestyle. It is an easy fix that can spur spending. After all there are a lot of jobs in recycling and the products are generally sold at a higher price.
It's greenwashing by groups that have no real interest in addressing the root problems, which are too many people in a lifestyle that is ultimately unsustainable.
Heartland is going to sue the blogosphere!
http://heartland.org/press-releases/2012/02/15/heartland-institute-responds-stolen-and-fake-documents
:roll:
Quote...
One document, titled "Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy," is a total fake apparently intended to defame and discredit The Heartland Institute. It was not written by anyone associated with The Heartland Institute. It does not express Heartland's goals, plans, or tactics. It contains several obvious and gross misstatements of fact.
We respectfully ask all activists, bloggers, and other journalists to immediately remove all of these documents and any quotations taken from them, especially the fake "climate strategy" memo and any quotations from the same, from their blogs, Web sites, and publications, and to publish retractions.
The individuals who have commented so far on these documents did not wait for Heartland to confirm or deny the authenticity of the documents. We believe their actions constitute civil and possibly criminal offenses for which we plan to pursue charges and collect payment for damages, including damages to our reputation. We ask them in particular to immediately remove these documents and all statements about them from the blogs, Web sites, and publications, and to publish retractions.
Quote from: Iptuous on February 20, 2012, 02:44:17 PM
Heartland is going to sue the blogosphere!
http://heartland.org/press-releases/2012/02/15/heartland-institute-responds-stolen-and-fake-documents
:roll:
Quote...
One document, titled "Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy," is a total fake apparently intended to defame and discredit The Heartland Institute. It was not written by anyone associated with The Heartland Institute. It does not express Heartland's goals, plans, or tactics. It contains several obvious and gross misstatements of fact.
We respectfully ask all activists, bloggers, and other journalists to immediately remove all of these documents and any quotations taken from them, especially the fake "climate strategy" memo and any quotations from the same, from their blogs, Web sites, and publications, and to publish retractions.
The individuals who have commented so far on these documents did not wait for Heartland to confirm or deny the authenticity of the documents. We believe their actions constitute civil and possibly criminal offenses for which we plan to pursue charges and collect payment for damages, including damages to our reputation. We ask them in particular to immediately remove these documents and all statements about them from the blogs, Web sites, and publications, and to publish retractions.
I'm not sure I believe the Heartland Institute in saying these documents are fake...
... but it is an interesting thought, isn't it?
Part of what helps mass media inform is that, theoretically, there are standards which people are held accountable to in relaying information. Obviously this isn't perfect (you just have to look at the crap which gets published in papers or spouted on the news...)
But your eye-rolling reaction to the idea that 'the blogosphere' might be held accountable in the same way other forms of media are isn't unique. The internet is often held up as a really great way to talk and disseminate ideas, but if everyone has total freedom of speech and can make up any shit they want about what anyone else has said, with no repercussions for doing so, then it becomes much harder to have any kind of faith in the discussion at all, doesn't it?
I can see why the idea of an unregulated internet is scaring the shit out of companies. These things spread extremely quickly and become taken as fact, and companies pay huge amounts of money to project the kind of image they want to be known for. Without some means of control, the internet constitutes a real threat to the reputations they pay so much cash to try and maintain.
I don't know if this is a good thing, a bad thing, or even just a 'thing', yet, but it is an interesting thought.
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on February 20, 2012, 02:53:44 PM
...
The internet is often held up as a really great way to talk and disseminate ideas, but if everyone has total freedom of speech and can make up any shit they want about what anyone else has said, with no repercussions for doing so, then it becomes much harder to have any kind of faith in the discussion at all, doesn't it?
Yes. yes it does.
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on February 20, 2012, 02:53:44 PM
I can see why the idea of an unregulated internet is scaring the shit out of companies. These things spread extremely quickly and become taken as fact, and companies pay huge amounts of money to project the kind of image they want to be known for. Without some means of control, the internet constitutes a real threat to the reputations they pay so much cash to try and maintain.
I don't know if this is a good thing, a bad thing, or even just a 'thing', yet, but it is an interesting thought.
Well, it
is definitely
some kind of thing. and whatever the best reaction that the now shitless companies
could take, i'm sure that "Sue Everyone!" is not likely it. :lol: i think that deserves an eyeroll because it is so asinine.
even if they were to put the clamps on blogs and forums for posting commentary on items like this based on the notion that it is 'journalism', they still wouldn't be able to do anything about the chain email traffic regarding politics under that purview, would they?
Quote from: Iptuous on February 20, 2012, 03:26:34 PM
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on February 20, 2012, 02:53:44 PM
...
The internet is often held up as a really great way to talk and disseminate ideas, but if everyone has total freedom of speech and can make up any shit they want about what anyone else has said, with no repercussions for doing so, then it becomes much harder to have any kind of faith in the discussion at all, doesn't it?
Yes. yes it does.
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on February 20, 2012, 02:53:44 PM
I can see why the idea of an unregulated internet is scaring the shit out of companies. These things spread extremely quickly and become taken as fact, and companies pay huge amounts of money to project the kind of image they want to be known for. Without some means of control, the internet constitutes a real threat to the reputations they pay so much cash to try and maintain.
I don't know if this is a good thing, a bad thing, or even just a 'thing', yet, but it is an interesting thought.
Well, it is definitely some kind of thing. and whatever the best reaction that the now shitless companies could take, i'm sure that "Sue Everyone!" is not likely it. :lol: i think that deserves an eyeroll because it is so asinine.
even if they were to put the clamps on blogs and forums for posting commentary on items like this based on the notion that it is 'journalism', they still wouldn't be able to do anything about the chain email traffic regarding politics under that purview, would they?
Seems likely to me that the best thing they can do, from a strategic perspective, is push measures like SOPA and gain access to tools which let them shut down sites.
Chain emails can be regulated in exactly the same way. 'Spam' emails already are illegal, it wouldn't take much to extend that measure.
you don't think it would become quickly apparent that the public blowback would offset the gains in protecting their image?
isn't the image of the RIAA/MPAA tarnished most heavily by their hamfisted techniques?
or are my filters clouding my view? perhaps the numbers do not bear out what i'm thinking?
Quote from: Iptuous on February 20, 2012, 04:03:09 PM
you don't think it would become quickly apparent that the public blowback would offset the gains in protecting their image?
isn't the image of the RIAA/MPAA tarnished most heavily by their hamfisted techniques?
or are my filters clouding my view? perhaps the numbers do not bear out what i'm thinking?
Do you think they actually care? Today, PR is all about "because I CAN".
Quote from: Iptuous on February 20, 2012, 04:03:09 PM
you don't think it would become quickly apparent that the public blowback would offset the gains in protecting their image?
isn't the image of the RIAA/MPAA tarnished most heavily by their hamfisted techniques?
or are my filters clouding my view? perhaps the numbers do not bear out what i'm thinking?
Well amongst the internet community, SOPA certainly did hurt some reputations. But most of the people who don't use it regularly still aren't all that aware of what SOPA is or what it would have done.
In the short term it has been laid to rest, but long term, this is a threat which isn't going away and it needs to be addressed. More to the point, after it has been brought in, it won't hurt their reputations to defend their name using the tools in place to do it.
Imagine someone put up a website slandering you personally, claiming you are a criminal and what have you. Nobody would object to you getting that website shut down - companies can paint this in the exact same light.
Quote from: Twid, not Billy. on February 18, 2012, 08:01:43 PM
Yeah thats the shitty part. Everyone thinks in the short term and doesnt want to be inconvenienced now. Iirc kai pointed out that home recycling is essentially useless even if everyone does it since its such a small percentage of the problem.
It really is. Promotion of residential recycling, while an obviously good thing, is useless unless commercial industries follow suit. It also causes people to ignore far larger problems of inefficient fuel and water use by industry and, especially for the latter, agriculture. In the whole picture, what residential households do with waste, fuel, and water is such a tiny piece of the pie that it wouldn't make any difference if they stopped. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't. It means that it's a tiny part to the massive improvement needed.
I will say one thing about paper recycling though. The chemicals needed to expunge the dyes from paper products are often worse than the primary production chemicals. In many ways I'd rather farm aspen for clearcutting (because they grow right back up, and make excellent pulp) than recycle some of these paper products (not cardboard, incidentally; that's a solid recycling strategy).
I don't...I just don't...
VANCOUVER, Canada - The world's first "test-tube" meat, a hamburger made from a cow's stem cells, will be produced this fall, Dutch scientist Mark Post told a major science conference on Sunday.
Post's aim is to invent an efficient way to produce skeletal muscle tissue in a laboratory that exactly mimics meat, and eventually replace the entire meat-animal industry.
The ingredients for his first burger are "still in a laboratory phase," he said, but by fall "we have committed ourselves to make a couple of thousand of small tissues, and then assemble them into a hamburger."
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/lifestyle/02/20/12/first-test-tube-hamburger-ready-fall-researchers
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 20, 2012, 08:22:20 PM
Post's aim is to invent an efficient way to produce skeletal muscle tissue in a laboratory that exactly mimics meat, and eventually replace the entire meat-animal industry.
Annnnnd cows will be extinct by Tuesday of the following week. :lulz:
And we're all dead the following week from bad prions. :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 20, 2012, 08:23:14 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 20, 2012, 08:22:20 PM
Post's aim is to invent an efficient way to produce skeletal muscle tissue in a laboratory that exactly mimics meat, and eventually replace the entire meat-animal industry.
Annnnnd cows will be extinct by Tuesday of the following week. :lulz:
And we're all dead the following week from bad prions. :lulz:
If it's going to take until fall to make one fucking burger, we'll all starve to death long before they can poison us.
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 20, 2012, 08:26:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 20, 2012, 08:23:14 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 20, 2012, 08:22:20 PM
Post's aim is to invent an efficient way to produce skeletal muscle tissue in a laboratory that exactly mimics meat, and eventually replace the entire meat-animal industry.
Annnnnd cows will be extinct by Tuesday of the following week. :lulz:
And we're all dead the following week from bad prions. :lulz:
If it's going to take until fall to make one fucking burger, we'll all starve to death long before they can poison us.
Yeah, well, we have cows until they figure it out.
Then we all die of DIIIIIIIIABETES! :lulz:
I want mine Bunsen Burner-broiled.
I'm just going to start eating people when they do away with real meat. That will start reducing the stress on the planet.
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 20, 2012, 08:22:20 PM
I don't...I just don't...
VANCOUVER, Canada - The world's first "test-tube" meat, a hamburger made from a cow's stem cells, will be produced this fall, Dutch scientist Mark Post told a major science conference on Sunday.
Post's aim is to invent an efficient way to produce skeletal muscle tissue in a laboratory that exactly mimics meat, and eventually replace the entire meat-animal industry.
The ingredients for his first burger are "still in a laboratory phase," he said, but by fall "we have committed ourselves to make a couple of thousand of small tissues, and then assemble them into a hamburger."
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/lifestyle/02/20/12/first-test-tube-hamburger-ready-fall-researchers
I'm just curious as to how they'll re-brand it.
Quote from: Risus on February 21, 2012, 06:44:10 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 20, 2012, 08:22:20 PM
I don't...I just don't...
VANCOUVER, Canada - The world's first "test-tube" meat, a hamburger made from a cow's stem cells, will be produced this fall, Dutch scientist Mark Post told a major science conference on Sunday.
Post's aim is to invent an efficient way to produce skeletal muscle tissue in a laboratory that exactly mimics meat, and eventually replace the entire meat-animal industry.
The ingredients for his first burger are "still in a laboratory phase," he said, but by fall "we have committed ourselves to make a couple of thousand of small tissues, and then assemble them into a hamburger."
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/lifestyle/02/20/12/first-test-tube-hamburger-ready-fall-researchers
I'm just curious as to how they'll re-brand it.
The Other Red Non-Meat
Vegan meat.
VAT MEAT
IT'S ABOUT FUCKING TIME
The logical conclusion to this is that someone will grow some human vat-meat and eat it. Maybe out of HeLa cells.
Dear Henrietta; Thank you for feeding the world!
I'm so sorry for saying that.
Quote from: Nigel on February 21, 2012, 07:20:29 PM
VAT MEAT
IT'S ABOUT FUCKING TIME
The logical conclusion to this is that someone will grow some human vat-meat and eat it. Maybe out of HeLa cells.
Warren Ellis is right about EVERYTHING. :lulz:
Quote from: Nigel on February 21, 2012, 07:21:12 PM
I'm so sorry for saying that.
Someone was gonna do it. :lulz:
:horrormirth:
Quote from: Cramulus on February 17, 2012, 02:56:44 PM
It's absurd that they're still pushing the "scientists are uncertain" meme? This is a Frank Luntz (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,30602.msg1108495.html#msg1108495) creation from the mid 90s that got out of control.
Frank Luntz doesn't even support it anymore! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Yz8UwRsWPA - they're recycling 7 year old talking points. He says, "It's unfair to take a document that was written in 1998 and apply it in 2006."
It really underscores the lasting power of good communication.
THIS GUY!! ARRRRRG :argh!:
Listening to him is even more gut-wrenchingly horribly fascinating than reading Kafka :asplode:
I was going to say HA mr Luntz so you let the genie out of the bottle and now you can't get it back huh?
But that's not what happens at all.
He wouldn't write this memo this way today, at all--is a non statement of course, he'd probably have written a very different memo already a month later.
And those who keep repeating it,
it's their responsibility. It's like he really doesn't care at all!Even though he says "my beliefs have changed since then", but listen carefully, it's not his own literal beliefs on climate change that have changed, no:
His beliefs of what the American People think of climate change have changed.
(in other words what he means is that he would play them differently, today)
There's a good chance that he really has no beliefs either way. Which is unlikely for an average person with knowledge about climate issues, but Luntz isn't very average.
So fucking creepy. I wonder what he thinks of himself. In terms of being of the same species as the rest of us.
It's like he's a golem, or something. Except inside-out. He doesn't have a tiny scroll with instructions inside his head, but you can insert a coin through a slot and then his mouth opens and a scroll rolls off his tongue, ready to be placed in the overfull stuffed head of that other golem, the demiurge, the American People.
It's like, you know, if we ever accidentally the whole singularity and get a trans-human AI living inside the Internet controlling whatever is going on in the world, like in that one Asimov story, managing our politics and our economies. I think it'll be a lot like mr Luntz. Caring neither way, and never speaking of its own beliefs and ideas, but communicating through a choir of voices that reflect the collective consciousness,
vox populi but not in the traditional meaning of the word.
Brrrr.
Quote from: Iptuous on February 20, 2012, 04:03:09 PMyou don't think it would become quickly apparent that the public blowback would offset the gains in protecting their image?
isn't the image of the RIAA/MPAA tarnished most heavily by their hamfisted techniques?
or are my filters clouding my view?
Yes well but who are the RIAA/MPAA?
"The X association of Y"
They're not even the fall-guy, they're merely fronts.
So the RIAA/MPAA gets tarnished. Who exactly gets tarnished?
Maybe there will be some blowback on some big movie companies. Big deal. People want entertainment anyway. And if the RIAA/MPAA gets too bad of a rep, what would a conscionable media company do? Well, they'd publicly distance themselves from RIAA/MPAA of course and start a new, better, more
ethical association with a disgustingly euphemistic name. Calling it now, 1-2 years.
And in the mean time, every entity with money, regardless of their involvement in the media industries, gets to exert more control over free speech on the every-inter-wheres.
Entities like Heartland are profiting too from this happening. The RIAA/MPAA might get tarnished. All the suits are laughing and profiting, while the public spits and kicks and stomps on its own brightly coloured CGI rendered blockbuster toys. And the suits cheer us on "yes! this is why you can't have nice things! harder!" (well it sounds like a cheer ...)
Incidentally, guess who set up the Heartland Institute? If "well-funded libertarian think-tank" did not already tip you off, this may be of interest (http://exiledonline.com/radicals-for-corporate-pollution-the-koch-cartel-the-heartland-institute/).
I am disappointed that Heartland is not on theyrule.net. I bet that would reveal some fascinating connections.
I'm sure some of their members are. They're too well connected in the Cato Institute/revolving door of lesser Koch-funded think-tanks nexus to be entirely overlooked.
Quote from: Cain on February 28, 2012, 03:47:11 PM
I'm sure some of their members are. They're too well connected in the Cato Institute/revolving door of lesser Koch-funded think-tanks nexus to be entirely overlooked.
Yes, definitely. It's just that since Heartland itself isn't on there I can't pull it up and view the tangled web with it at the center.
Who made theyrule.net? If you think they should be on there, maybe you can email them to fix that error? (unless I'm suggesting something outrageously difficult)
There is a Kevin Fitzgerald at the Heartland Institute, as Executive VP.
A Kevin G. Fitzgerald sits on the board of Murphy Oil, "an international oil and gas company, founded in 1944 as C.H. Murphy & Co by Charle H Murphy Sr., that conducts business through various operating subsidiaries. Murphy produces oil and/or natural gas in the United States, Canada, Malaysia, the United Kingdom and Republic of the Congo and conducts exploration activities worldwide. Murphy also has an interest in a Canadian synthetic oil operation, owns two petroleum refineries and two ethanol production facilities in the United States and one petroleum refinery in the United Kingdom. The Company operates a growing retail marketing gasoline station chain on the parking lots of Walmart Supercenters and at stand-alone locations in the United States, and also markets petroleum products under various brand names and to unbranded wholesale customers in the United States and the United Kingdom."
Not definite, but struggling to find a pic of Murphy Oil's Fitzgerald to confirm.
Quote from: Triple Zero on February 28, 2012, 04:14:13 PM
Who made theyrule.net? If you think they should be on there, maybe you can email them to fix that error? (unless I'm suggesting something outrageously difficult)
Josh On made it, and he's surprisingly difficult to contact directly. Plus, I'm not at all sure how recently it's been updated.