Mean Scenester wrote:That there's called a citation, JFH. You should embrace the idea. Apparently your "recent" information predates 2010. Might want to brush up on your research.
Your link was dated Feb 13, 2012 which seems rather recent to me. It begins:
disclosure of the Sierra Club’s secret
acceptance of $26 million in donations from people associated with a natural gas company has revived an uncomfortable debate among environmental groups about corporate donations and transparency. (Emphasis added JRH)
The disclosure would seem to be recent. If this was all above board, why was it not disclosed at the time? Why do they only come out against fracking after they stop getting the Chesapeake money?
Cause or effect? Did they come out against fracking because they were no longer getting the $25 million? Or did they stop taking the $25 million so they could come out against fracking?
Did Sierra Club cut off the $25 million or did Chesapeake? In which case, was coming out against fracking retaliation?
I don't know and neither do you.
It is hardly moot, even now. It illustrates the problem of who is funding these groups and for what reasons. Who else is funding Sierra Club under the table, secretly? What is that funder's agenda. Is Sierra Club acting as their agent?
JFH wrote:Coca-Cola has long used polar bears in its marketing. It has also been sending big bucks to the WWF which is promoting polar bear die-off. (Although bear population has actually quadrupled since the 70's)
Okay, your turn. Where'd you get this info. Is there a sinister side to the WWF's "Adopt a polar bear" program I'm unaware of?
Which info? About Coca Cola funding the polar bears? This is pretty public. Not secret like the Chesapeake/Sierra Club money.
Here is the first hit I got searching +polar bears +wwf + Coca-cola:http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/media/ ... 24592.html
WWF and The Coca-Cola Company Team Up to Protect Polar Bears
The Coca-Cola Company and World Wildlife Fund Partner to Protect the Polar Bear’s Home
For Release: Oct 25, 2011
Or do you mean polar bear population increasing. Well, I have had this discussion before many times and was going from memory rather than go look it up. (Ditto the Sierra Club issue, ditto Coca-Cola/WWF)
Anyway, since you insist, here is a citation:
Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said:
"Although the population of bears has grown from a low of about 12,000 in the late 1960s to approximately 25,000 today,"http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/ ... -relevant/
I had remembered it going from about 6,000 to about 25,000 from the 70s to early 2000s. I don't see much point in trying to figure out at this date where I had gotten those numbers from. So it doubled instead of quadrupling. It still increased pretty significantly.
It did not decline.
It is forecast to decline, but the North Pole is forecast, as recently as 2007 or so to be completely ice free (no arctic ice cap at all) by August 2012. Not sure if that was the beginning or the end of August. Lots of melting needs to take place either way. (Have ANY of these end of the world predictions ever turned out to be true? Yet the gullible always seem to believe them)
My note here was not about polar bears or secret funding of the Sierra Club anyway. Those were merely a couple examples.
My note was about (possibly) compromised, either secretly or openly, environmental organizations
It was to ask whether Henn's anti-fracking organization was compromised. Who funds them and why? We should probably know that to know what their agenda is. Once we know where their money comes from we can decide how believable they are. (They may be perfectly legit and as pure as the driven snow. It could happen)
That issue, potential organizational compromise, is hardly moot.
Nor should it ever be.