FoF groups work under different "banners" or "Policy centers" that spread Right Wing propoganda to the media and lobby congress
Center for Constitutional Government Center for Economic Liberty and Property Rights Center for National Security and Defense Center for Free Market Environmentalism and Conservation Center for Civic, Family, and Societal Progress Center for Science and Public Policy

FoF receives money from Big Tobacco and Big Oil Companies, such as Philip Morris (tobacco), ExxonMobil and RJ Reynolds Tobacco.

According to the New York Times FoF has about a "$700,000 annual budget, received $230,000 from Exxon in 2002, up from $40,000 in 2001, according to Exxon documents"

FoF als...

FoF groups work under different "banners" or "Policy centers" that spread Right Wing propoganda to the media and lobby congress
Center for Constitutional Government Center for Economic Liberty and Property Rights Center for National Security and Defense Center for Free Market Environmentalism and Conservation Center for Civic, Family, and Societal Progress Center for Science and Public Policy

FoF receives money from Big Tobacco and Big Oil Companies, such as Philip Morris (tobacco), ExxonMobil and RJ Reynolds Tobacco.

According to the New York Times FoF has about a "$700,000 annual budget, received $230,000 from Exxon in 2002, up from $40,000 in 2001, according to Exxon documents"

FoF also receives donations from the Right Wing plutocrat Scaife Family from the Sarah Scaife Foundation

In 1996 a memo shows that Jeff Taylor of FoF wrote to Alexander Spears of the Lorillard Tobacco Comany to solicit funding.

Taylor describes the activities where FoF engaged in attacks against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's efforts to regulate the Tobacco industry- That same memo shows that FoF managed to generate clamor from GOP congressmembers seeking support of FoF- who was at that time a new group.

FoF gives out "Defender of Freedom" award to Republican Stooges who are loyal to the Big Tobacco and Big Oil companies that fund FoF.

Other activities that FoF engage in include attempting to lobby congress to privatize Social Security, and undermine privacy laws- all in 1996.

The tentacles are deep. Soros had connections with powerbrokers in the former Soviet Union. Soros attempted to assist with plans to help restore the collapsing Soviet Economy. Now, Soros fund dozens of small, medium and large activist groups that form a loose coalition of anti-American agendas. There are Soros connections to Global Warming Research that rants about global warming alramism.
The fact is there are a million little pieces, like shards of glass, ripping the fabric of the U.S. - They can be found in just about every major movement and issue: Global Warming, environmentalism, NAFTA, illegal immigration, global corporatism (ironically enough), capitalist authoritarianism......

for ...

The tentacles are deep. Soros had connections with powerbrokers in the former Soviet Union. Soros attempted to assist with plans to help restore the collapsing Soviet Economy. Now, Soros fund dozens of small, medium and large activist groups that form a loose coalition of anti-American agendas. There are Soros connections to Global Warming Research that rants about global warming alramism.
The fact is there are a million little pieces, like shards of glass, ripping the fabric of the U.S. - They can be found in just about every major movement and issue: Global Warming, environmentalism, NAFTA, illegal immigration, global corporatism (ironically enough), capitalist authoritarianism......

for example. While this may or may not be true of political rhetoric's opportunism, it's the sort of thing that shouldn't detract, as you seem to imply in an earlier comment from scientific, economic or political debate and argument based on appropriate methodologies.

I'm really not sure I follow your previous comments as they relate to Global Warming. The facts are pretty clear: The Earth has probably warmed ( . 7) degrees in the last century. Well within the range of of historical variation. There is nothing beyond that to support the Alarmism behind those that wan of catastrophe. The fact is we will NEVER reduce carbon emissions anytime in the foreseeable future (next 30 years).

I can talk about facts all day long and have done so many times here at Clipmarks . It is painfully clear there is psychological component at play in those the WANT to believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming. It always goes back to EXXON or Republicans.

Now I can separate th...

I'm really not sure I follow your previous comments as they relate to Global Warming. The facts are pretty clear: The Earth has probably warmed ( . 7) degrees in the last century. Well within the range of of historical variation. There is nothing beyond that to support the Alarmism behind those that wan of catastrophe. The fact is we will NEVER reduce carbon emissions anytime in the foreseeable future (next 30 years).

I can talk about facts all day long and have done so many times here at Clipmarks . It is painfully clear there is psychological component at play in those the WANT to believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming. It always goes back to EXXON or Republicans.

Now I can separate the facts from the agenda behind the alarmism. They are two different things. However, It wasn't I that posted this clip where actual science is called propaganda and a fake consensus is called science.

The clip, in this case, doesn't stand as information or necessarily something I concur with, but as an example of the general politicisation of the 'debate', a factor which does tend to occur in different political affilations. The psychological 'need' to accept certain agenda and perspectives is common across the board. This is as true for climate change as it is for, say, foreign policy, economics or religion: information sources, viewpoints etc tend to be selected to support conclusions without as full as possible knowledge and completeness of interpretation. What can also happen is a metonymic viewpoint where a fact or several facts, which true in themselves, are presented as representat...

The clip, in this case, doesn't stand as information or necessarily something I concur with, but as an example of the general politicisation of the 'debate', a factor which does tend to occur in different political affilations. The psychological 'need' to accept certain agenda and perspectives is common across the board. This is as true for climate change as it is for, say, foreign policy, economics or religion: information sources, viewpoints etc tend to be selected to support conclusions without as full as possible knowledge and completeness of interpretation. What can also happen is a metonymic viewpoint where a fact or several facts, which true in themselves, are presented as representative of the whole. It strikes me, for instance,
that the methodological discussion parts of the debated reports (about reports about reports) are fairly sound in their transparency on parameters of interpretation, need for development, truth value etc. Discussion of the vast array of interpretations and data from all sources would, alas, require more space than clipmarks! And for myself I would not feel remotely qualified to achieve anything resembling a satisfactory overview.