NRDC: A Force for Nature in 2014 

crazyspiff thanks so much for your kind words! I was totally shocked when I first found out about the NY ivory market too. You never imagine something like that to be happening right under your nose. Thanks for standing with NRDC to save precious wildlife and wild lands.

Annaliesa Rose thanks so much!

Daniel Alexander Lugo thanks for sharing! Always moving forward! :)

Daniel Mc Sween thanks so much!

*****.. do you guys offer support to other younger green groups? things like disseminating ecological information needed prior to conservation efforts. help with pushing policies through ur reputation etc.

Daniel Mc Sween thanks for your support! Have a great day :)

Loretta Perrone well, I'm glad you're happy we are protecting nature and the precious creatures around the globe. We don't have to agree on everything, but I'm glad we can both agree that they are worth fighting for! Happy holidays.

Oh for Christ's sake. Seriously?! "A farce"?! Get real. 97% of all climatologists agree that the planet is heating up and that the billions of tons of CO2 and other greenhouse gases we dump into the air, water and land are the causes. It's absolutely STUNNING to me that in late 2014, days from 2015, there are STILL people naive enough to think this is a hoax. And by naive, I mean dumb or at the very least, gullible. However you want to slice it, it's not smart. WHY do you think it's not real? Do you not understand the correlation between the terms "climate change" and "global warming"? Is it too difficult for you to see that it's just a matter of two different words or phrases being used to describe the same phenomenon? The difference between the two words/phrases has to do with the individual tone of each word (climate change being the more benign-sounding or less threatening of the two) and the definition of each word/phrase, with "climate change" being a broader, all-encompassing word/phrase that includes the phenomenon of global warming and "global warming" being limited to well, global warming, that is, the warming of the globe, or planet - though it could be said that "global warming" indirectly implies that the climate is changing, since the warming of the planet is itself a change in the climate. Here's some history of the origin of the word/phrase "climate change:" Frank Luntz is an American political consultant, pollster and "public opinion guru" best known for developing talking points and other messaging for various Republican causes. (I nicked that from Google.) He came up with the phrase "climate change" in response to the what it was being called by climatologists, weather experts, environmentalists and - of course - Democrats at that time. I have a lot of respect for Frank Luntz' talent. He is a brilliant if not visionary man with an uncanny if not almost unearthly - that was an unintended pun that is now intended - ability to know how to phrase and rephrase words or phrases in a manner that changes the tone if not the meaning into something friendlier to Republican causes; something more beneficial to them. What I do not respect about Frank Luntz is his lack of integrity, more specifically, his lack of morality and ethicality. Frank Luntz is no dummy. He is not ignorant. This is a man who LISTENS. He takes in information and feedback and processes it. He has the capacity to separate the wheat from the chaff and know the difference between fact and fiction, and between right and wrong. His toast may be buttered by the Republican Party, giving him something of an "ethical" excuse to do what he does, but he also knows the difference between right and wrong and when a person knowingly and purposely does something he/she knows is wrong to do, e.g., comes up with a phrase that distorts and diminishes it's original intent and meaning, in turn causing greater harm in the long run to the world and its people at large, then that person is doing something that is immoral. Frank Luntz' obligation, as a learned man with a supernatural ability to communicate concepts, is to answer not just to the people who write his checks, but to the greater good of ALL people. It is his, as it ours as well, ethical duty to serve the greater good. He has an ethical obligation to do so. He knows full well that the earth is heating up and that by calling it "climate change" it takes the threat level down several notches (sometimes to zero) and opens up "global warming " to being misrepresented and misunderstood, as is the case here with you, for you have incorrectly ascertained that because "global warming" was proven to be a "farce," the term "climate change" was created to be used in its place. That is incorrect, in case you didn't get that. But seriously, I want to know what you base your farce of an opinion on. Fox News? Limbaugh? Senator Imhofe? Your religion, assuming you're a Christian? It irritates me that there are people like you in this country and on this planet. Why? Because were it not for dunderheads such as yourself, this country, one of the two biggest polluters in the world, would be much further along in doing the things we need to to mitigate the consequences of a warming planet. The longer we wait, the worse the consequences will be. Is it that you don't give a crap about your kids or grand kids or great grand kids? I can't imagine that to be true. How do you think you're going to feel when you FINALLY put two and two together and realize the harm you and your ilk have done and are doing to this planet by delaying implementation of the things we need to do to combat what is shaping up to be a catastrophe of unprecedented proportions? So again, tell me how the wool was pulled over your eyes. I REALLY want to know. WHAT is the basis of your belief that this is some colossal JOKE? WHY would we perpetuate a HOAX such as this? Tell me. I'm most interested. Just don't give me any of that nonsense about scientists being given government money to tow the "the planet is heating up" line. Don't make me have to point out that the people and organizations who are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on commercials in order to persuade the public not to believe in the fact of global warming and hundreds of millions of dollars on lobbyists to persuade politicians not to write legislation that would require them to reduce and eliminate the pollution they and their businesses generate, do so because it would COST THEM A LOT of money, more than what they spend on commercials, lobbyists and campaigns combined by far. They make hundreds of millions and billions of dollars; scientists receive grants for research, etc., of which only a portion goes to their salary, which is rarely more than two hundred thousand annually. Who do you think has the greater incentive? Also, why would you think the NRDC would NOT support action on climate change / global warming? Where do you think these animals that they're trying to protect live? The moon? This planet is what allows them - AND US - to live. If your home burns down, you're home is gone, baby, gone. Yeah, YOU can go live in a motel or maybe a friend's or family member's home. They don't. And ultimately neither do we. Rethink your thinking on this most crucial matter. Don't deny; don't ignore, for ignorance is the net result of ignoring matters and this is one very important matter.

Global warming remains a very large threat to many species. Have a look at papers in the respected, peer-reviewed journal Global Change Ecology. If you do, you will be amazed at the work being done by scientists on this issue.

thanks for your support!