JohnRich 4 #1 January 23, 2007 News:"Global Warming" Scientist's Funding comes with Liberal Strings Attached At a time when the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) is censuring free market organizations for accepting donations from ExxonMobil, critics have turned the spotlight back onto the UCS, its left-wing positions, and its own funding practices. The UCS describes itself as an "alliance" of over 200,000 citizens and scientists. It integrates "independent scientific research" with "citizen action" for the purpose of developing and implementing "changes to government policy, corporate practices and consumer choices." But critics say it is an openly political group. According to James Dellinger, executive director of Greenwatch - a project of the Capital Research Center - the UCS has a long financial association with elements that have a "partisan view of science." David Martosko, executive director of ActivistCash.com - a division of the Center for Consumer Freedom - agrees. He told Cybercast News Service the UCS would be "more aptly named the Union of Pro-Regulation, Anti-Business Scientists." University of Virginia environmental scientist Fred Singer, labeled a "climate contrarian" by the UCS, told Cybercast News Service that the union had "zero credibility as a scientific organization" and was more akin to "pressure groups like Greenpeace..." Source: Cybercast News Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #2 January 23, 2007 oh oh someone did not get their grant approval..... ooops Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,602 #3 January 23, 2007 The Capital Research Center is considered by some to be fairly right-wing in its orientation. It came under fire in the 90's for criticizing the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association and the American Cancer Society for lobbying rather than spending more on research. For the period studied, those charities were quite consistent with other (non-anti-tobacco) charities' spending on research. Some of the headlines in their Foundation Watch list are below. This doesn't mean that they are dishonest or anything else. But their focus on trying to poke holes in people and causes widely perceived as more liberal makes one wonder how even-handed they are. I read the introductory sections of each of these, and only 3 of them don't target liberal/progressive sides with negative terminology, in my estimation. Every organization is going to have a slant. Every-single-one. This one too. Wendy W. Publication The Congressional Progressive Caucus: by Cheryl K. Chumley The Democrats’ capture of Congress gives unprecedented power to the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC)—the organized left wing of the party. Among its expected 70 members in the 110th Congress, at least seven are slated to chair powerful ... List of Foundation Watch newsletters: January 2007: George Soros's Democracy Alliance by James Dellinger and Matthew Vadum George Soros is spurring a handful of wealthy donors who have formed a loose-knit group that is funding a permanent political infrastructure of nonprofits, think tanks, media outlets, leadership schools, and activist groups—a kind of vast left-wing ... December 2006: George Soros by Neil Maghami George Soros recently said he wants to get out of politics. Don’t believe him. The billionaire philanthropist’s quest to influence domestic politics continues. Soros’s methods change, and the issues shift – but his goals remain the same. November 2006: Warren Buffett’s Philanthropy by Jonathon McClellan and Robert M. Huberty Philanthropist Warren Buffett’s record-breaking pledge to give away $31 billion to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation grabbed international headlines, but his pledge to give a separate $6 billion to the foundations of his late wife and children ... October 2006: Consumers and Credit Cards: by Sara Wille The credit card—one of the most successful innovations of the 20th century and a driving force behind much of America’s economic growth—is under attack by so-called consumer advocates and left-wing advocacy groups. They claim young adults are the ... September 2006: Funding Liberalism With Blue-Chip Profits by David Hogberg and Sarah Haney Although many believe self-interested corporations lavish funds on politically conservative groups, it just isn’t true. A painstaking analysis of tax returns for Fortune 100 foundations reveals the nonprofits overwhelmingly favor groups that push ... August 2006: The Price of Doing Business by Bonner R. Cohen What follows is an excerpt from Capital Research Center’s forthcoming book, The Green Wave: Environmentalism and Its Consequences, by Bonner Cohen. July 2006: State Global Warming Laws by David Hogberg and James Dellinger Summary: “If the feds won’t act, make the states do it!” That’s the environmental movement’s latest demand. During the last decade green groups have repeatedly failed to win support from Congress and the White House for national and international ... June 2006: The Robertson Foundation Case by Martin Morse Wooster The battle between the children of Charles and Marie Robertson, heirs to the A&P grocery fortune, and Princeton University over control of the Robertson Foundation could be the most important donor intent case of this decade. The case has not yet ... May 2006: The Funding Exchange by James Dellinger At a time when liberal ideas are unpopular among voters the Funding Exchange offers a different leftwing strategy for achieving political and social change. It links radical activists to wealthy donors to create a unique network of community ...There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #4 January 23, 2007 >He told Cybercast News Service the UCS would be "more aptly named >the Union of Pro-Regulation, Anti-Business Scientists." So one guy says explicitly that they do NOT associate with business interests - and this makes them partisan? That's sort of backwards. If Skydive Arizona explicitly refused to ally themselves with the republicans - would you call them democratic stooges or something? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #5 January 23, 2007 You know you are messing with the wind driven snow here don't you?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #6 January 23, 2007 Oooh, I bet UCS can far outspend Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, Shell and BP combined on partisan research. Clearly UCS is the deep vault of money we've been looking for - NOT! Maybe you should check the credibility of your source.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #7 January 23, 2007 Always comes down to this when some organization has a different position. They are all bought off"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
speedy 0 #8 January 23, 2007 Oh John, I thought BP were your heroes because they have already buckled to the tree huggers. Don't they only spend money on renewables? Dave Fallschirmsport Marl Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #9 January 23, 2007 QuoteOh John, I thought BP were your heroes because they have already buckled to the tree huggers. Don't they only spend money on renewables? That was another John, he's Green Alien John today. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #10 January 24, 2007 QuoteOh John, I thought BP were your heroes because they have already buckled to the tree huggers. Don't they only spend money on renewables? no, they have to pay fines for safety violations too.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #11 January 24, 2007 The Union of Concerned Scientists has a particular bias? You mean their mission isn't simply scientific inquiry? Shocking! Truly shocking! Some think the mission of People For The American Way is consistent with their name, too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
