Hard hitting global and local news
Russell Seitz said… PP:I have always deplored the elision of science and advertising, but I question the historicity of Oreskes narrative . State of the art advertising best practices began shaping environmental consciousness raising campiagns a decade before the Climate Wars began, and from what I’ve observed ,those practices were enbraced with professional zeal by P-R operatives on both sides
Tweet ScienceDaily says a paper found that climate change has less impacts on biodiversity than land use has. My first thoughts were that it’s plausible, that the negative effects are combined, and that the priority might depend on the assumptions. I tried to RTFA , but it was paywalled other than a long abstract
— Jeff Nesbit (@jeffnesbit) May 25, 2015 Maurice Strong  Newman, is the usual "business" advisor to the Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott.
Visit site: Heartland Institute – Convenient Cognitive Dissonance
Here’s the exchange in Danish newspapers (emphasis added, some typos corrected): Kare Fog, a critic of Lomborg: …. Lomborg will presumably refer to his Copenhagen Consensus conference, where it is shown with – seemingly – matter-of-fact cost/benefit calculations that it pays better to solve other problems than global warming ….. [The audience members] do not know that t he figures have arisen by discounting calculations and that Lomborg has cheated in these calculations. He has used one discount rate for climate projects, and another discount rate for the remaining projects
See more here: My little California DISCLOSE Act video project