Climate Change: Fact or Fiction

Dash

NRL Captain
3,166
2,335
Brisbane
Evidence for those claims, Dash Dash ? And, what's your point?

Also - is Greta sponsored by anyone?
It's not a claim, it's a cold hard fact. The Heartland Institute.

My point is that they are scum who will spout any bullshit once paid for by any company that makes their money off destroying the environment and/or human lives. My secondary point is that anything they have to say, and by association this girl has to say, is not worth listening to.
 

LittleDavey83

NRL Player
1,285
890
Bundy
It's not a claim, it's a cold hard fact. The Heartland Institute.

My point is that they are scum who will spout any bullshit once paid for by any company that makes their money off destroying the environment and/or human lives. My secondary point is that anything they have to say, and by association this girl has to say, is not worth listening to.
I'm well aware of Heartland. I was looking for you to provide an actual source rather than an assertion, but I guess you're not going to....why not?

From their website:

"Smoking is habit-forming and isn’t healthy, and kids shouldn’t smoke. But at some point, now some years ago, we went well beyond reasonable measures to discourage smoking and protect nonsmokers, and are now waging all-out war on smokers. That’s wrong."

"Heartland's long-standing position on tobacco is that smoking is a risk factor for many diseases; we have never denied that smoking kills. We argue that the risks are exaggerated by the public health community to justify their calls for more regulations on businesses and higher taxes on smokers, and that the risk of adverse health effects from second-hand smoke is dramatically less than for active smoking, with many studies finding no adverse health effects at all. These positions are supported by many prominent scientists and virtually all free-market think tanks. We take these principled positions on tobacco control despite their being very politically incorrect and despite receiving little (and in some years no) funding from tobacco companies because they are freedom issues."


From a Joe Bast article:

"“Forecast the Facts” falsely claims that we take the positions we do because we are funded by tobacco companies. In fact, tobacco companies have never contributed more than 2 percent of our total income in a given year. I repeat: Not more than 2 percent. Our positions on tobacco control are based on facts and principles, not on who funds us."


Would you consider that perhaps you've misunderstood, or been misled in your views on Heartland? A source for your claims would, again, be useful here.


Secondly, if you disagree with someone / a group of people on one point, why on earth does that make anything they (or who they fund) say, "not worth listening to"? Personally I find that astoundingly closed-minded. The implication is that someone is either right about everything or wrong about everything....that's absurd. They could be totally wrong with their views on tobacco and smoking - what on earth does that have to do with a bright teenager in Germany talking about climate change?

Question for you - if"Big Oil" companies contributeg funding the likes of Greenpeace, WWF etc, would that mean those organisations are beholden to "Big Oil"?
 
Last edited:

Dash

NRL Captain
3,166
2,335
Brisbane
I'm well aware of Heartland. I was looking for you to provide an actual source rather than an assertion, but I guess you're not going to....why not?

From their website:

"Smoking is habit-forming and isn’t healthy, and kids shouldn’t smoke. But at some point, now some years ago, we went well beyond reasonable measures to discourage smoking and protect nonsmokers, and are now waging all-out war on smokers. That’s wrong."

"Heartland's long-standing position on tobacco is that smoking is a risk factor for many diseases; we have never denied that smoking kills. We argue that the risks are exaggerated by the public health community to justify their calls for more regulations on businesses and higher taxes on smokers, and that the risk of adverse health effects from second-hand smoke is dramatically less than for active smoking, with many studies finding no adverse health effects at all. These positions are supported by many prominent scientists and virtually all free-market think tanks. We take these principled positions on tobacco control despite their being very politically incorrect and despite receiving little (and in some years no) funding from tobacco companies because they are freedom issues."


From a Joe Bast article:

"“Forecast the Facts” falsely claims that we take the positions we do because we are funded by tobacco companies. In fact, tobacco companies have never contributed more than 2 percent of our total income in a given year. I repeat: Not more than 2 percent. Our positions on tobacco control are based on facts and principles, not on who funds us."


Would you consider that perhaps you've misunderstood, or been misled in your views on Heartland? A source for your claims would, again, be useful here.


Secondly, if you disagree with someone / a group of people on one point, why on earth does that make anything they (or who they fund) say, "not worth listening to"? Personally I find that astoundingly closed-minded. The implication is that someone is either right about everything or wrong about everything....that's absurd. They could be totally wrong with their views on tobacco and smoking - what on earth does that have to do with a bright teenager in Germany talking about climate change?

Question for you - if"Big Oil" companies contributeg funding the likes of Greenpeace, WWF etc, would that mean those organisations are beholden to "Big Oil"?
So your source in their defence is Heartland itself? OJ Simpson also says he's innocent.

Their opinion is not worth listening to because it's paid for. Also, they exist only to support issues on one side of politics, so it's safe to assume their 'scientific' investigations are far from unbiased.

To answer your question, I'm going to assume that 'Big Oil' do in fact contribute to such organisations, otherwise why would you be asking. And I'd say it's probably so the Kool-Aid drinkers have an easy rebuttal at hand when proving how smart they are on the internet.
 

LittleDavey83

NRL Player
1,285
890
Bundy
So your source in their defence is Heartland itself? OJ Simpson also says he's innocent.

Their opinion is not worth listening to because it's paid for. Also, they exist only to support issues on one side of politics, so it's safe to assume their 'scientific' investigations are far from unbiased.

To answer your question, I'm going to assume that 'Big Oil' do in fact contribute to such organisations, otherwise why would you be asking. And I'd say it's probably so the Kool-Aid drinkers have an easy rebuttal at hand when proving how smart they are on the internet.
So you have, quite literally, nothing of any substance then? C'mon mate, you can do better than this.

Everyone who is not completely self-funded, is paid for by someone else. Do you honestly believe that makes their opinions worthless? Do you apply this logic to both 'sides' of any debate or do you only hold the 'other' side responsible to their funders? Any organisations paid, for example by the 'leftist' Soros, or Gates...it's also safe to assume their 'scientific' investigations are also far from unbiased and should be ignored? Science is science...if it's right, it's right, no matter WHO pays for it or makes the findings. If it's wrong, then it can be disproved...that's kind of the point of science.

And yes. 'Big Oil' does in fact financially support a lot of environmental organisations and put vast sums into renewable energy etc. Does that change your views on anything or do you genuinely believe that's simply so some keyboard warriors can use it as an easy rebuttal?
 
Last edited:

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create free account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Top