15 ms·

At Apple shareholder’s meeting, Tim Cook tells off climate change deniers

93 points by dsirijus 13y ago

loceng 13y ago
Odd. I really hope this isn't related to a possible buy of Tesla for a huge amount.
ueqirat 13y ago
it is possible to disagree with apple's investment in "sustainability" and not be a climate change denier
- thesimpsons1022 13y ago
  No one said it wasn't. But this conservative advocacy group did both.
- jpgvm 13y ago
  Maybe, but a bullshit loaded question is a bullshit loaded question - no matter wether or not you deny climate change.
- protomyth 13y ago
  Probably not since it is such an effective dismissal. This isn't really about Apple, it is more about the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA) of which Apple is a member and the NCPPR going after them. NCPPR isn't some new organization, so they have a lot of things on their agenda (consider nuclear missiles were once an item on it). Not saying their right or wrong on this one, mostly just saying Ars Technica did its usual crappy job on anything with a political bent. They don't seem to do much research into the who or even try to interview anyone.
- flgb 13y ago
  Yes, but a lot of people who like to put the word sustainability in scare quotes are against action on climate change. And a lot of people who preface mentions of the phrase climate change with "so called" are deniers.
hawkharris 13y ago
Apple should disclose at least basic information about the scope of their investments. This is just common sense, and it's especially important at a time when investors are panicked about the future of the stock.
- cgriswald 13y ago
  Given that, among actual shareholders, only 2.95% voted for the proposal, I do not think they are especially panicked about the future of the stock.
  - hawkharris 13y ago
    This proposal is only one manifestation of investors' concerns. It doesn't follow that because 3% voted for it, only 3% are concerned about the stock, which has been downgraded for the first time in 10 years.
    - cgriswald 13y ago
      Investors are not panicked. I argue that a panicked investor will either: I) Sell his stock immediately. or II) Demand any information available. Since (I) is not happening on a large scale (even when it dropped in January volume was a small portion of total shares), it follows that if investors are panicked about the stock, (II) must be occuring. However, (II) is not occuring because only 2.95% of shareholders voted for the proposal. This indicates that even if some portion of investors are panicked, it is at best only 2.95% of them. Thus it would be incorrect to say investors are panicked. Now you have changed the investors' dispositions from "panicked" to "concerned". Assume that 100% of shareholders are "concerned" about the stock. It still follows that, at best, only 2.95% of shareholders are "concerned" about this particular information.
      - hawkharris 13y ago
        "Apple's stock price has fallen by 40% over the past six months, vaporizing almost $300 billion of market value." Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/two-charts-show-why-apple-stock-dropped-2013-4 http://www.businessinsider.com/two-charts-show-why-apple-sto...
wlesieutre 13y ago
Oh my... "Too often investors look at short-term returns and are unaware of corporate policy decisions that may affect long-term financial prospects. After today's meeting, investors can be certain that Apple is wasting untold amounts of shareholder money to combat so-called climate change. The only remaining question is: how much?" [1] Let's all ignore climate change. Clearly that would give us better long-term financial prospects. And will definitely not be a huge economic disaster. [1] http://www.nationalcenter.org/PR-Apple_Tim_Cook_Climate_022814.html http://www.nationalcenter.org/PR-Apple_Tim_Cook_Climate_0228...
downandout 13y ago
"Climate Change Denier" is a term coined by radical environmentalists in an attempt to paint their opponents as crazy and stupid. Most rational people don't deny that climate change is occurring. Many people simply side with scientists that have examined the facts and determined that human attempts at trying to control climate change are about as effective as Indian rain dances. That said, Tim Cook's response was correct. The measure this group proposed was actually very broad. They wanted the company to base all decisions on ROI only. Had it been adopted by the board, it would have instantly opened the company up to a flood of shareholder lawsuits over any number of expenditures that don't directly generate profits.
- Johnie 13y ago
  > They simply side with scientists that... Which scientists?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- jpgvm 13y ago
  Any scientist worth the oxygen they breathe all seem to be in agreement of 3 things. a) Climate change is real and happening. b) It's most definitely the impact of our utilisation of natural resources. c) That we can take measures to minimise it's effects.
  - ry0ohki 13y ago
    All true, but I think there is a misconception that if we all just recycle more and drive hybrids that climate change will stop. We are accelerating climate change, but even if we stopped all carbon now Bangladesh will still be under water in 150 years or less.
    - wpietri 13y ago
      No serious environmentalist I've read believes that misconception. In my view, that's another form of denial. Not the organized PR-flack fraud in the style originated by the tobacco industry, but just the normal human kind of wanting to ignore anything personally inconvenient.
dmckeon 13y ago
Anyone interested in trying to explore the topic of climate change at NCPPR could probably apply for a summer internship in 2014 - here's a 2013 version: http://www.theihs.org/koch-summer-fellow-program/host/national-center-public-policy-research http://www.theihs.org/koch-summer-fellow-program/host/nation... Oh, btw: consider the source...
- protomyth 13y ago
  Yes, given the Koch brothers spent money supporting gay marriage legalization, decriminalize drugs, and repealing the Patriot Act you might want to be careful[1]. Does anyone actually look at what these groups actually fund or do we just go by the pundits on TV? 1) or not
Tycho 13y ago
It seems that we've now shifted fully from 'global warming' to 'climate change.'
- singingfish 13y ago
  It's a more accurate term. While climate change will cause increased temperatures, it also causes increased variability in weather.
  - lttlrck 13y ago
    More accurate yet at the same time less specific.
yeukhon 13y ago
NCPPR demanded that Apple discontinue the programs and commit only to projects that are explicitly profitable. The word demanded seems to be a very very strong statement. It's almost like a command. I'd be really surprised if that was really the word NCPPR used in the letter. encouraged, or suggested would be better. What power does NCPPR has over Apple to demand Apple to take action X? To climate change deniers out there: while there is a natural part of climate change (as Sun continues to burn, the surface temperature continues to increase and eats the golden green zone between Earth and Sun and eventually will boil Earth one day), wastes produced by humans are also contributing climate eliminate changes. And even if climate change is a scam, I'd rather to feel safer, knowing we are using clean energy than breathing air full of hazardous particles and wait for disaster to come. A lot of the changes and proposed changes to defend climate change actually makes life better. Just think about ways to protect underground subway system and electricity from flooding and securing the harbor from potential sea level rise. Use recycled papers rather than cutting down new trees all the time. Conversing water and finding new reusable energy resource to sustain the on-growing population. All these shits (excuse my Chinese here) are either directly or indirectly a result of learning about climate change and Earth sustainability. And guess what? They are new business opportunity.
- mikeyouse 13y ago
  Page 63 here has the precise language: http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AAPL/2993150551x0x717769/d69c760e-5c4a-49f5-9790-9d1bbb2fd049/2014Proxy.pdf http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AAPL/2993150551x0x717...
RivieraKid 13y ago
I'm really sceptical and suspicious to the type of environmental policies that Apple and other companies do. The effect on global warming is near zero, possibly even negative. The decision to use green energy decreases the price of non-green energy, so other companies will buy more of it. I really don't like how unsystematic and non-transparent this approach is. A clean solution would be a tax on non-green energy. It would make the economy-environment tradeoff very clear.
- Daishiman 13y ago
  And the use of green energy goes towards investment in green energies that will lower the price of it, with the difference that the supply of nonrenewables is limited, whereas the others are not.
  - specialist 13y ago
    It's also risk mitigation. Supplying your own electricity from solar farms is a pretty good way to avoid price volatility.
    - singingfish 13y ago
      That's one reason why I invested around $30,000 in renewable energy features (passive and active) in the house I built last year. $3k per year amortised over 10 years for a low operating cost system, comfortable living and working environmnet? It's a no brainer.
- flgb 13y ago
  Apple isn't in a position to implement new taxes. Where the Government isn't showing leadership, it's beholden on corporations to show the way where they can. By implementing these policies Apple can show leadership and influence their peers and support the clean energy industry. This is the right thing to do.
- wpietri 13y ago
  > The effect on global warming is near zero, possibly even negative. The decision to use green energy decreases the price of non-green energy, so other companies will buy more of it. That's a first-order effect. But second-order effects of the price changes include encouraging investment in green energy and discouraging investment in non-green energy. That will shift the long-term incentives for all market participants.
jleader 13y ago
Was anyone else amused by the reference to "the Al gore contingency in the room"? For non-native English speakers, I'll note that there's a noun "contingency" with a meaning related to the adjective "contingent" (meaning roughly "conditional"), but not directly related to the noun "contingent" (meaning roughly "faction").
- nirnira 13y ago
  Hah I didn't see that, nice catch!
Adrock 13y ago
Another take is that these kind of sustainable practices are desirable to Apple's high-value employees. By acting in a way that increases the retention of those employees and helps with recruiting new ones with similar priorities, they are investing in the company's future.
- brc 13y ago
  A better way of achieving that would be to set aside a bucket of money to direct towards work that staff would like to see. The staff could then vote for where that money could be spent. It might be solar energy, or it could be cancer research. That would be much more direct and measurable. Berkshire Hathaway does the same thing with its investors - gives them the say where the company spends its charitable contributions.
  - Adrock 13y ago
    It's not obvious to me that what you describe is a better way. The two approaches are not mutually exclusive and what I described is not about charitable contributions. It's about actual business processes and business decisions, which are difficult to argue should be made using votes.
joshuaheard 13y ago
If liberals really cared about climate change, we would all be using nuclear power and Obama would not have cut Bush's program to develop fuel cell cars.
- jodrellblank 13y ago
  Do you think: - "Liberals" is a group of people who all think the same way. - The only reason nuclear power isn't widely used is "Liberals not caring about climate change". ?
Geekette 13y ago
How much of Apple stock does NCPPR own anyway? Amusing to see that nowhere in its long whiny press release does it announce that it will divest itself of AAPL. Whatever happened to putting your money where your mouth is or voting with your feet?
- justin66 13y ago
  These companies invest specifically so they can get stuff on the ballot at shareholder meetings and it often doesn't take very much at all. I believe it depends in part on the bylaws of a given corporation. There's a similar group with a similar agenda who trolled GE after GE announced some kind of wind power initiative. I don't know how much stock they owned but given GE's market cap at the time, I'm sure it wasn't a lot of the company on a percentage basis...
- mikeash 13y ago
  It's always hilarious to watch supposed champions of the free market fail to let the money do the talking.
salgernon 13y ago
It seems to me that these folks are using the shareholder meeting - and Tim cooks response - as theatre to get in the public eye. I'd never heard of them before (and now I know to avoid them) and they've succeeded in getting their message in front of many more people. This is the reason greenpeace and similar target apple publicly, even though apple was already doing much of what they were asking for.
tostitos1979 13y ago
I'm not a big fan of TC. But this quote (from the article) gave him a +10 in my books: "When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind," he said, "I don't consider the bloody ROI."
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
prestadige 13y ago
The reason deniers exist generally is because there's a problem they don't want to face. Another, equally fatal approach to any problem is to attempt to jump to a solution. The correct approach is to try to understand the problem better which requires thinking -- in societal terms, it means research. So, by all means, let's tell off the deniers, expand solar and wind, reduce coal, even make lifestyle gestures -- but put the bulk of effort into researching safe nuclear power and researching geo-engineering. (Unless I'm misreading the situation, there seem to be taboos around both at present.)
bfe 13y ago
This group, NCPPR, has a long history of not only denying climate science [1] by misconstruing their sources [2], but also defending the tobacco industry [3] and denying involvement in corruption scandals [4]. 1. http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA388.html http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA388.html 2. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/295/5554/476.abstract http://www.sciencemag.org/content/295/5554/476.abstract http://web.archive.org/web/20050414163144/http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v418/n6895/abs/418291b_fs.html http://web.archive.org/web/20050414163144/http://www.nature.... http://web.archive.org/web/20050414163147/http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v418/n6895/abs/418292a_fs.html http://web.archive.org/web/20050414163147/http://www.nature.... 3. http://web.archive.org/web/20030930182136/http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2000Q3/ncppr.pdf http://web.archive.org/web/20030930182136/http://www.prwatch... http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA198.html http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA198.html 4. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a9s0nfJm4uZA&refer=top_world_news http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a9s0n... http://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/article/Think-tank-head-claims-Abramoff-deceived-her-1943377.php http://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/article/Think-tank-he... http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/23/politics/23indian.html?_r=0&ei=5094&en=77d0036a5f15c93b&hp=&ex=1119585600&partner=homepage&pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/23/politics/23indian.html?_r=...
zheshishei 13y ago
Is anybody else really annoyed by the image banner on their site[1]? Not only is it broken into two images, there's a br tag causing most of the misalignment. Also, the two splices don't have the same height. I've checked this in chrome, firefox, and ie 7-10 and it doesn't work in any of them. [1]http://www.nationalcenter.org/ http://www.nationalcenter.org/

93 points by dsirijus 13y ago

loceng 13y ago

Odd. I really hope this isn't related to a possible buy of Tesla for a huge amount.

ueqirat 13y ago

it is possible to disagree with apple's investment in "sustainability" and not be a climate change denier

thesimpsons1022 13y ago
No one said it wasn't. But this conservative advocacy group did both.
jpgvm 13y ago
Maybe, but a bullshit loaded question is a bullshit loaded question - no matter wether or not you deny climate change.
protomyth 13y ago
Probably not since it is such an effective dismissal. This isn't really about Apple, it is more about the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA) of which Apple is a member and the NCPPR going after them. NCPPR isn't some new organization, so they have a lot of things on their agenda (consider nuclear missiles were once an item on it). Not saying their right or wrong on this one, mostly just saying Ars Technica did its usual crappy job on anything with a political bent. They don't seem to do much research into the who or even try to interview anyone.
flgb 13y ago
Yes, but a lot of people who like to put the word sustainability in scare quotes are against action on climate change. And a lot of people who preface mentions of the phrase climate change with "so called" are deniers.

hawkharris 13y ago

Apple should disclose at least basic information about the scope of their investments. This is just common sense, and it's especially important at a time when investors are panicked about the future of the stock.

cgriswald 13y ago
Given that, among actual shareholders, only 2.95% voted for the proposal, I do not think they are especially panicked about the future of the stock.
- hawkharris 13y ago
  This proposal is only one manifestation of investors' concerns. It doesn't follow that because 3% voted for it, only 3% are concerned about the stock, which has been downgraded for the first time in 10 years.
  - cgriswald 13y ago
    Investors are not panicked. I argue that a panicked investor will either: I) Sell his stock immediately. or II) Demand any information available. Since (I) is not happening on a large scale (even when it dropped in January volume was a small portion of total shares), it follows that if investors are panicked about the stock, (II) must be occuring. However, (II) is not occuring because only 2.95% of shareholders voted for the proposal. This indicates that even if some portion of investors are panicked, it is at best only 2.95% of them. Thus it would be incorrect to say investors are panicked. Now you have changed the investors' dispositions from "panicked" to "concerned". Assume that 100% of shareholders are "concerned" about the stock. It still follows that, at best, only 2.95% of shareholders are "concerned" about this particular information.
    - hawkharris 13y ago
      "Apple's stock price has fallen by 40% over the past six months, vaporizing almost $300 billion of market value." Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/two-charts-show-why-apple-stock-dropped-2013-4 http://www.businessinsider.com/two-charts-show-why-apple-sto...

wlesieutre 13y ago

Oh my... "Too often investors look at short-term returns and are unaware of corporate policy decisions that may affect long-term financial prospects. After today's meeting, investors can be certain that Apple is wasting untold amounts of shareholder money to combat so-called climate change. The only remaining question is: how much?" [1] Let's all ignore climate change. Clearly that would give us better long-term financial prospects. And will definitely not be a huge economic disaster. [1] http://www.nationalcenter.org/PR-Apple_Tim_Cook_Climate_022814.html http://www.nationalcenter.org/PR-Apple_Tim_Cook_Climate_0228...

downandout 13y ago

"Climate Change Denier" is a term coined by radical environmentalists in an attempt to paint their opponents as crazy and stupid. Most rational people don't deny that climate change is occurring. Many people simply side with scientists that have examined the facts and determined that human attempts at trying to control climate change are about as effective as Indian rain dances. That said, Tim Cook's response was correct. The measure this group proposed was actually very broad. They wanted the company to base all decisions on ROI only. Had it been adopted by the board, it would have instantly opened the company up to a flood of shareholder lawsuits over any number of expenditures that don't directly generate profits.

Johnie 13y ago
> They simply side with scientists that... Which scientists?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
jpgvm 13y ago
Any scientist worth the oxygen they breathe all seem to be in agreement of 3 things. a) Climate change is real and happening. b) It's most definitely the impact of our utilisation of natural resources. c) That we can take measures to minimise it's effects.
- ry0ohki 13y ago
  All true, but I think there is a misconception that if we all just recycle more and drive hybrids that climate change will stop. We are accelerating climate change, but even if we stopped all carbon now Bangladesh will still be under water in 150 years or less.
  - wpietri 13y ago
    No serious environmentalist I've read believes that misconception. In my view, that's another form of denial. Not the organized PR-flack fraud in the style originated by the tobacco industry, but just the normal human kind of wanting to ignore anything personally inconvenient.

dmckeon 13y ago

Anyone interested in trying to explore the topic of climate change at NCPPR could probably apply for a summer internship in 2014 - here's a 2013 version: http://www.theihs.org/koch-summer-fellow-program/host/national-center-public-policy-research http://www.theihs.org/koch-summer-fellow-program/host/nation... Oh, btw: consider the source...

protomyth 13y ago
Yes, given the Koch brothers spent money supporting gay marriage legalization, decriminalize drugs, and repealing the Patriot Act you might want to be careful[1]. Does anyone actually look at what these groups actually fund or do we just go by the pundits on TV? 1) or not

Tycho 13y ago

It seems that we've now shifted fully from 'global warming' to 'climate change.'

singingfish 13y ago
It's a more accurate term. While climate change will cause increased temperatures, it also causes increased variability in weather.
- lttlrck 13y ago
  More accurate yet at the same time less specific.

yeukhon 13y ago

NCPPR demanded that Apple discontinue the programs and commit only to projects that are explicitly profitable. The word demanded seems to be a very very strong statement. It's almost like a command. I'd be really surprised if that was really the word NCPPR used in the letter. encouraged, or suggested would be better. What power does NCPPR has over Apple to demand Apple to take action X? To climate change deniers out there: while there is a natural part of climate change (as Sun continues to burn, the surface temperature continues to increase and eats the golden green zone between Earth and Sun and eventually will boil Earth one day), wastes produced by humans are also contributing climate eliminate changes. And even if climate change is a scam, I'd rather to feel safer, knowing we are using clean energy than breathing air full of hazardous particles and wait for disaster to come. A lot of the changes and proposed changes to defend climate change actually makes life better. Just think about ways to protect underground subway system and electricity from flooding and securing the harbor from potential sea level rise. Use recycled papers rather than cutting down new trees all the time. Conversing water and finding new reusable energy resource to sustain the on-growing population. All these shits (excuse my Chinese here) are either directly or indirectly a result of learning about climate change and Earth sustainability. And guess what? They are new business opportunity.

mikeyouse 13y ago
Page 63 here has the precise language: http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AAPL/2993150551x0x717769/d69c760e-5c4a-49f5-9790-9d1bbb2fd049/2014Proxy.pdf http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AAPL/2993150551x0x717...

RivieraKid 13y ago

I'm really sceptical and suspicious to the type of environmental policies that Apple and other companies do. The effect on global warming is near zero, possibly even negative. The decision to use green energy decreases the price of non-green energy, so other companies will buy more of it. I really don't like how unsystematic and non-transparent this approach is. A clean solution would be a tax on non-green energy. It would make the economy-environment tradeoff very clear.

Daishiman 13y ago
And the use of green energy goes towards investment in green energies that will lower the price of it, with the difference that the supply of nonrenewables is limited, whereas the others are not.
- specialist 13y ago
  It's also risk mitigation. Supplying your own electricity from solar farms is a pretty good way to avoid price volatility.
  - singingfish 13y ago
    That's one reason why I invested around $30,000 in renewable energy features (passive and active) in the house I built last year. $3k per year amortised over 10 years for a low operating cost system, comfortable living and working environmnet? It's a no brainer.
flgb 13y ago
Apple isn't in a position to implement new taxes. Where the Government isn't showing leadership, it's beholden on corporations to show the way where they can. By implementing these policies Apple can show leadership and influence their peers and support the clean energy industry. This is the right thing to do.
wpietri 13y ago
> The effect on global warming is near zero, possibly even negative. The decision to use green energy decreases the price of non-green energy, so other companies will buy more of it. That's a first-order effect. But second-order effects of the price changes include encouraging investment in green energy and discouraging investment in non-green energy. That will shift the long-term incentives for all market participants.

jleader 13y ago

Was anyone else amused by the reference to "the Al gore contingency in the room"? For non-native English speakers, I'll note that there's a noun "contingency" with a meaning related to the adjective "contingent" (meaning roughly "conditional"), but not directly related to the noun "contingent" (meaning roughly "faction").

nirnira 13y ago
Hah I didn't see that, nice catch!

Adrock 13y ago

Another take is that these kind of sustainable practices are desirable to Apple's high-value employees. By acting in a way that increases the retention of those employees and helps with recruiting new ones with similar priorities, they are investing in the company's future.

brc 13y ago
A better way of achieving that would be to set aside a bucket of money to direct towards work that staff would like to see. The staff could then vote for where that money could be spent. It might be solar energy, or it could be cancer research. That would be much more direct and measurable. Berkshire Hathaway does the same thing with its investors - gives them the say where the company spends its charitable contributions.
- Adrock 13y ago
  It's not obvious to me that what you describe is a better way. The two approaches are not mutually exclusive and what I described is not about charitable contributions. It's about actual business processes and business decisions, which are difficult to argue should be made using votes.

joshuaheard 13y ago

If liberals really cared about climate change, we would all be using nuclear power and Obama would not have cut Bush's program to develop fuel cell cars.

jodrellblank 13y ago
Do you think: - "Liberals" is a group of people who all think the same way. - The only reason nuclear power isn't widely used is "Liberals not caring about climate change". ?

Geekette 13y ago

How much of Apple stock does NCPPR own anyway? Amusing to see that nowhere in its long whiny press release does it announce that it will divest itself of AAPL. Whatever happened to putting your money where your mouth is or voting with your feet?

justin66 13y ago
These companies invest specifically so they can get stuff on the ballot at shareholder meetings and it often doesn't take very much at all. I believe it depends in part on the bylaws of a given corporation. There's a similar group with a similar agenda who trolled GE after GE announced some kind of wind power initiative. I don't know how much stock they owned but given GE's market cap at the time, I'm sure it wasn't a lot of the company on a percentage basis...
mikeash 13y ago
It's always hilarious to watch supposed champions of the free market fail to let the money do the talking.

salgernon 13y ago

It seems to me that these folks are using the shareholder meeting - and Tim cooks response - as theatre to get in the public eye. I'd never heard of them before (and now I know to avoid them) and they've succeeded in getting their message in front of many more people. This is the reason greenpeace and similar target apple publicly, even though apple was already doing much of what they were asking for.

tostitos1979 13y ago

I'm not a big fan of TC. But this quote (from the article) gave him a +10 in my books: "When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind," he said, "I don't consider the bloody ROI."

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

prestadige 13y ago

The reason deniers exist generally is because there's a problem they don't want to face. Another, equally fatal approach to any problem is to attempt to jump to a solution. The correct approach is to try to understand the problem better which requires thinking -- in societal terms, it means research. So, by all means, let's tell off the deniers, expand solar and wind, reduce coal, even make lifestyle gestures -- but put the bulk of effort into researching safe nuclear power and researching geo-engineering. (Unless I'm misreading the situation, there seem to be taboos around both at present.)

bfe 13y ago

This group, NCPPR, has a long history of not only denying climate science [1] by misconstruing their sources [2], but also defending the tobacco industry [3] and denying involvement in corruption scandals [4]. 1. http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA388.html http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA388.html 2. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/295/5554/476.abstract http://www.sciencemag.org/content/295/5554/476.abstract http://web.archive.org/web/20050414163144/http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v418/n6895/abs/418291b_fs.html http://web.archive.org/web/20050414163144/http://www.nature.... http://web.archive.org/web/20050414163147/http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v418/n6895/abs/418292a_fs.html http://web.archive.org/web/20050414163147/http://www.nature.... 3. http://web.archive.org/web/20030930182136/http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2000Q3/ncppr.pdf http://web.archive.org/web/20030930182136/http://www.prwatch... http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA198.html http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA198.html 4. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a9s0nfJm4uZA&refer=top_world_news http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a9s0n... http://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/article/Think-tank-head-claims-Abramoff-deceived-her-1943377.php http://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/article/Think-tank-he... http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/23/politics/23indian.html?_r=0&ei=5094&en=77d0036a5f15c93b&hp=&ex=1119585600&partner=homepage&pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/23/politics/23indian.html?_r=...

zheshishei 13y ago

Is anybody else really annoyed by the image banner on their site[1]? Not only is it broken into two images, there's a br tag causing most of the misalignment. Also, the two splices don't have the same height. I've checked this in chrome, firefox, and ie 7-10 and it doesn't work in any of them. [1]http://www.nationalcenter.org/ http://www.nationalcenter.org/