Automotive Deals HPCC Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Jake Owen Fire TV Stick Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer CafeSociety CafeSociety CafeSociety  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Segway miniPro
Customer Discussions > Science forum

Global warming is nothing but a hoax and a scare tactic

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 76-100 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2012 1:50:30 AM PST
A customer says:
Mark - "but admittedly may not be obvious to a Climatologist who wants to use other peoples money to fund their publicly funded pet research projects... "

Your problem immediately being that there is no way to limit this allegation to any particular science, it being an allegation so gloriously free of justification that it can be applied to any scientific reality whatsoever.

Posted on Feb 20, 2012 2:36:29 AM PST
Treehugger© says:
I havent taken the time to read the 45 pg PDF YET

3 Speeches by Michael Crichton

-Aliens cause Global Warming
-Environmentalism as Religion
-The Case for Skepticism on Global Warming

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/commentaries/crichton_3.pdf

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/crichton_three_speeches.html

Posted on Feb 20, 2012 2:40:52 AM PST
Treehugger© says:
The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) is a global warming skeptics website and blog now run by the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, which employs SPPI President Robert Ferguson; the SPPI website has drawn heavily on papers written by Christopher Monckton.

Ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council

In August 2011, Institute President Robert Ferguson spoke on "Benefit Analysis of CO2"[1] (previously known as "Warming Up to Climate Change: The Many Benefits of Increased Atmospheric CO2"[2]) at the Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force meeting at the 2011 American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) Annual Meeting.[3] He was accompanied by Craig Idso of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and MEP Roger Helmer, a Member of the European Parliament for the East Midlands of Great Britain who represents the Conservative Party and has used his position on the European Parliament to fight increased regulation of member states through the European Union.[3]

ALEC is not a lobby; it is not a front group. It is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, behind closed doors, corporations hand state legislators the changes to the law they desire that directly benefit their bottom line. Along with legislators, corporations have membership in ALEC. Corporations sit on all nine ALEC task forces and vote with legislators to approve "model" bills. They have their own corporate governing board which meets jointly with the legislative board. (ALEC says that corporations do not vote on the board.) They fund almost all of ALEC's operations. Participating legislators, overwhelmingly conservative Republicans, then bring those proposals home and introduce them in statehouses across the land as their own brilliant ideas and important public policy innovations-without disclosing that corporations crafted and voted on the bills. ALEC boasts that it has over 1,000 of these bills introduced by legislative members every year, with one in every five of them enacted into law. ALEC describes itself as a "unique," "unparalleled" and "unmatched" organization. It might be right. It is as if a state legislature had been reconstituted, yet corporations had pushed the people out the door. Learn more at ALECexposed.org

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute

http://alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed

Posted on Feb 20, 2012 4:07:05 AM PST
Treehugger© says:
I dont have to cherry pick some cold spot on Earth and lie about it. We have a warm winter right here all over the Central and Eastern U.S.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2012 5:50:11 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 20, 2012 6:48:36 AM PST
TeaPartyWoman. It won't help. Amazon isn't that stupid to rely on just the handles, and I am sure keeps track of handle changes.

TS: Wow! Going for the BIGGEST lies possible now!

You --TeaPartyWoman -- did the NASTIEST impersonation of me possible on the Politics Forum.
Taking real quotes from me to lure other posters to think they were me, then insulting them (conservatives and liberals alike) while twisting it into your deranged views!

Are you really that DIM that if Amazon started caring about impersonation YOU fantasize somehow they would not be looking at your nasty deeds?

And you are STILL lying to new posters that I was the one impersonating YOU.
Trash.
Pathetic.

Typical of YOUR BIG lies and why YOU are singularly so despised here.
I provided Joshua Feldman's posts to you as one more example. I have never seen him written so severely to a poster as you. And yes, that includes the now banned Mug Wump.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2012 6:08:07 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 20, 2012 6:29:14 AM PST
Truthseeker says ..."One sector doesn't have any greater weight than the other. It is a simple sum.

Goods and services are produced in the public and private sector. I already gave you the example of the military. The same applies to park rangers, police/fire protection, the national weather service, space exploration, and the list goes on and on."

ML: There you go again....thinking exactly like a liberal. Thinking the Government sector contributes like the private sector.. but nothing could be further from the truth. Government spending occurs based on revenue gleaned from the private sector in the form of taxes.

TS: And you ignored where I stated consumers would be paying for FEES if these public services would be performed by corporations. So there wouldn't be much difference from their standpoint.
--you also ignored where I discussed efficiencies of gov't vs corporations. There are pros and cons of each. Typically corporations produce most private goods and services; and the government produces public goods and services (ie for everyone regardless of wherewithall to PAY) examples: military, clean air and water, and research and development that would not be profitable for a corporation.

ML: Your example is a perfect one.. the government has no rational role in using taxpayer money to fund the Wolf trap... or Planned Parenthood, or half the hair-brained NSF basic research grants they fund....nor Solyndra (which is where we started this conversation some posts ago).

TS: Don't disagree with Wolf Trap. The rationale I think is that is is located within a public park, that the National Park Services is already responsible for maintaining.

Basic science is typically funded by governments because corporations would likely not make a profit. ie the corporation doing the heavy research, would go bankrupt when the next corporation used their technology (they could backwards engineer the product) to produce the product cheaper

--. That's why NASA funded a lot of the aeronautics research (private aeronautics firms still pay for use of NASA's wind tunnels they built as part of this R&D). And of course NASA did most of the research for satellites development and launching, that spawned a private new industry in satellite telecommunications.

ML:Now to return the discussion regarding Solar, I suppose you think the proper role of government is to make investment with taxpayer money in Solyndra type scams.

TS: Yes, investing in alternative energy to get us off our oil habit has a dual purpose --

(1) Economic: Long term the R&D reduces our economic trillion$ dependence on foreign oil (which we have recently fought a major war over and LOST our objective of oil leases in Iraq); As fossil fuels increase, the technology advances (compare with computers) will reduce costs for alternative energy.
We'd still be using the ENIAC based on your mindset.

(2) GLOBAL WARMING: Despite your ideology, the vast scientific studies are warning of the large economic disasters we are playing Russian roulette with in continuing to release large amounts of stored CO2 within the Earth into the atmosphere.

Again -- your ideology thinks it can TRUMP science (obviously as it thinks it can trump economics)

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2012 6:16:19 AM PST
MD: We know. Even Sarah "knew" until her handlers in the McCain campaign said as their draw to the wingnuts she should agree with everything the Teabaggers were told to believe each week. Then she suddenly discovered Alaska should pay millions to cherrypick data to show polar bears weren't impacted by the loss of the Arctic ice and weren't moving south.

TS: Sarah Palin admitted Alaska was warming, but went into right wing mode to insist this could be natural cycles. [There is no evidence any natural cycle would produce this level of warming -- not to mention the Milankovitch natural cycles would have us in a COOLING cycle now.]

When I posted this in the Political Forum, weeks later TeapartyWoman (still imitating me as Truthseeker) started posting I was a fan of Sarah Palin.

When I protested, she proudly pointed to my statement -- similar to what I gave above on Sarah Palin.
She knew it was a gross distortion. She laughed about it.
-- Just one of HUNDREDS of examples why I had such low disdain for this major liar: No lie was too big for TeaPartyWoman.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2012 6:19:04 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 20, 2012 6:28:57 AM PST
EB: This is the sort of context usually missing in lay discussions, but which climate science studies in detail.

TS: I don't think TeaPartyWoman's biased cherrypicked "analysis" constitues even a level of "typical lay" discussion. You missed her on the Political Forum shrieking and screaming all during 2010 that NOAA and NASA were lying and she was going to PROVE it.

She eventually just dropped the subject... was it six months later?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2012 6:33:01 AM PST
BPL: A very good summary, Debbie. Thanks for posting.

TS: Indeed! So far, I see no rebuttal to my answer to her from a conservative.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2012 6:43:06 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 20, 2012 6:43:34 AM PST
ML: ..but then we know governments do not create jobs... not even subsidized solar jobs as in Spain... private enterprise in a free market economy is what creates jobs and the government taxes from those jobs is given to the government to fund the government jobs ..... making the government a net consumer of jobs. Government consumes or requires on the order of 10 free enterprise jobs (and their tax revenue) for every government 'job'... Liberals or community activists with little or no free enterprise experience seem bewildered by this truth...

BPL: Probably because it's not a "truth." Any government-created job that is more labor-intensive than the national average adds to net jobs. Period.

TS: His BIG flaw is that where public goods would not be financed by taxes; then would instead by financed by fees/sales paid to corporations.

Corporations typically care primarily about their own profit and not the public good.

Where I think ML is really coming from is he imagines he could have more control over spending if it was privatized. Because see he doesn't care for the public good (example health research) so would be happy for that to go away. But that is a double edged sword, many liberals were against the increased military spending. That's why he conceded military and police were ok to keep as public spending, when I brought these to his attention.

Regarding R&D, in the past this is what has made our country great -- its technology. And regarding spending on the poor, this prevents riots and revolutions.

It is a small percentage of national income that goes to the poor. I did this analysis on the Political Forum -- notice I am adding together both the General Fund and the Social Security Fund:

=============================================

Government records show:

(1) Defense is 25% of Total Spending.
(2) Medicare and Social Security * are 44% and Medicaid is 13%
(3) Interest is 5% of the total.
(4) That leaves 13% for everything else - including Transportation (Highways), Parks, science and weather (including NASA). CIA/FBI, etc.
* my guess is federal pensions are here too.

Which is why all HONEST people note that if you want to get serious about spending cuts you have to whack the 100 ton gorillas in the room - Defense and Medicare/Social Security too.

OK?

Show me with REAL numbers why that isn't true, if you disagree.

======================================================
Here is the data
Source: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/budget_gs.php

........................ Billions %
Pensions........... 793.2 20.8%
Health Care..... 882 23.1%
Education........ 129.8 3.4%
Defense............ 964.8 25.3%
Welfare............ 495.6 13.0%
Protection....... 60.7 1.6%
Transportation.. 94.5 2.5%
General Government 33.2 0.9%
Other Spending..... 158.4 4.1%
Interest........... 206.7 5.4%

Total .................. 3818.8 100.0%

This usually gets people quiet, until this has rolled off a few pages ,then hard right conservatives typically pretend I never put it out.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2012 7:25:57 AM PST
Roeselare says:
Thanks Debbie. How's it going up there, in the public opinion I mean, are most folks blaming human activity for your warming?

At the higher latitudes, north and south, there's more cooling of the planet during most of our orbit, (because the Sun gets low in the sky). There's no other sources for keeping the planet cool. Regional forecasters at the lower latitudes watch for the seasonal turnover in the Fall of the year (ancient people thought of it in terms of the fall of the Sun toward the solstice, and later it was the fall of Jesus toward his death). We take notice of the week in which the cold air reaches its southernmost reach. As you, up there, warm up, the planet will lose this important turnover week, it will become less definitive and important. I assume that at that point AGW will become more and more apparent to everyone, even down here.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2012 7:47:43 AM PST
A customer says:
Truthseeker - "Sarah Palin admitted Alaska was warming, but went into right wing mode to insist this could be natural cycles"

I wouldn't call this rightwing per se. Lynsenkoism bears witness that the traditional left are as able to deny physical reality as the right. It is more a case of one specific party in one particular nation having come to associated education with "liberalism". A party that does that, in my opinion, has signed its own death warrant over the medium term.

Posted on Feb 20, 2012 8:04:24 AM PST
Joe says:
Pretty temperate here in N. CA this morning. I'm very thankful for greenhouse gases.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2012 8:07:06 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 20, 2012 8:12:48 AM PST
Joe: Pretty temperate here in N. CA this morning. I'm very thankful for greenhouse gases.

TS: Now if you could just stop the Earth's orbit, so the northern hemisphere stays in perpetual winter.
[and ignore everything else].

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2012 8:10:50 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 20, 2012 8:14:37 AM PST
Truthseeker - "Sarah Palin admitted Alaska was warming, but went into right wing mode to insist this could be natural cycles"

EB: I wouldn't call this rightwing per se. Lynsenkoism bears witness that the traditional left are as able to deny physical reality as the right. It is more a case of one specific party in one particular nation having come to associated education with "liberalism". A party that does that, in my opinion, has signed its own death warrant over the medium term

TS: Of course this is still RIGHT wing. And the extreme LEFT ideological wing IS capable of making up distortion and lies too -- again because THEIR ideology trumps science.

I have ticked off extreme LEFT wingers before (especially on the Political Forum), where they left angry at me... as I recall it was over hurricanes and polar bears.

The presence of Right wingers does not negate the presence of Left Wingers.

I just complain about the Right wing on the topic of global warming -- because it is they who are involved in a major misinformation campaign against the SCIENCE on global warming!

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2012 8:18:57 AM PST
W413: At the higher latitudes, north and south, there's more cooling of the planet during most of our orbit, (because the Sun gets low in the sky). There's no other sources for keeping the planet cool. Regional forecasters at the lower latitudes watch for the seasonal turnover in the Fall of the year (ancient people thought of it in terms of the fall of the Sun toward the solstice, and later it was the fall of Jesus toward his death). We take notice of the week in which the cold air reaches its southernmost reach. As you, up there, warm up, the planet will lose this important turnover week, it will become less definitive and important. I assume that at that point AGW will become more and more apparent to everyone, even down here

TS: Great post, Werranth413!

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2012 8:19:13 AM PST
Mark Leberer says:
Let's see if DeSmog does the honorable thing and remove the Fake or Fraudulently obtain document... Don't hold your breath...

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/02/heartland-sends-out-first-legal-notice-about-stolen-and-faked-documents/#comment-975404

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2012 8:42:29 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 20, 2012 8:43:17 AM PST
Roeselare says:
Thanks Truth,
I've suspected that the NWP models are slightly tweaked by the programmers in the early week(s) of each season. This is because it's quite obvious that the runs quickly become more accurate as each season develops its characteristic wave pattern.

But now since I've asked around, I've been convinced that tropospheric systems are just easier to forecast as the seasons 'mature' and settle down. This is the obvious answer, because we know that small perturbations accumulate through time and the more there are during a seasonal turnover, the more they influence the reliability of runs, but it just seemed to me that there was more to it.

The reason this is germane to our AGW future is because the planet should become less easy to model. I assume the modelers are well aware of this, but I don't know what they can do about it.

If the planet was cooling, just imagine how accurate our forecasts could become! ;)

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2012 11:50:14 AM PST
ML: Let's see if DeSmog does the honorable thing and remove the Fake or Fraudulently obtain document... Don't hold your breath...

BPL: Who says it's fake? Heartland? Why are they are reliable source?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2012 11:55:37 AM PST
Let's see if DeSmog does the honorable thing and remove the Fake or Fraudulently obtain document... Don't hold your breath...

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/02/heartland-sends-out-first-legal-notice-about-stolen-and-faked-documents/#comment-975404

TS: Let's see if you do the honorable thing ML, and not post from one of the most lying right wing sites out there.

As I recall, this is likely in regard to an earlier article I cited from the GUARDIAN, UK that noted it had been hacked recently and listing who some of its donors were.

I don't see anything that changes this:

Here is the Guardian on Feb 17, 2012:

<<Heartland Institute faces fresh scrutiny over tax statusWhistleblower made complaint to IRS over climate science attack machine's tax-exempt status, Guardian learns

The Heartland Institute, the libertarian thinktank whose project to undermine science lessons for schoolchildren was exposed this week, faces new scrutiny of its finances - including its donors and tax status.

The Guardian has learned of a whistleblower complaint to the Internal Revenue Service about Heartland's 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status.

There was also a call from a group of climate scientists who have personally been on the receiving end of attacks from Heartland and bloggers funded by the thinktank, and whose email was posted online after a notorious 2009 hack, for Heartland to "recognise how its attacks on science and scientists have poisoned the debate about climate change policy," in a letter made available exclusively to the Guardian.

The unauthorised release of internal documents indicated Heartland had received $14m over several years from a single anonymous donor as well as tobacco and liquor companies and corporations pledged to social responsibility, including the General Motors Foundation.

The release of the donors' list led a number of environmental organisations to demand GM, which gave $30,000, and Microsoft, which gave $59,908 in free software, to sever their ties with a thinktank that has a core mission of discrediting climate science.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/17/heartland-institute-fresh-scrutiny-tax

Give me a reputable source if you disagree, ok?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2012 12:55:14 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 20, 2012 1:02:12 PM PST
Mark Leberer says:
BPL: Who says it's fake? Heartland? Why are they are reliable source?

ML: Yes, Heartland says... But also actually many non-skeptics have noted the PDF document "2012 Climate Strategy clearly appears to be fake. See for example this AGW Headbangerette at http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/02/leaked-docs-from-heartland-institute-cause-a-stir-but-is-one-a-fake/253165/

Clearly however, Heartland does not represent a "vast rightwing conspiracy"...

As for "the largest international scientific conference of skeptics," Heartland will, according to the documents, spend all of $388,000 this year on the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. That's against the $6.5 million that the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change costs Western taxpayers annually, and the $2.6 billion the White House wants to spend next year on research into "the global changes that have resulted primarily from global over-dependence on fossil fuels." see http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204909104577233191850812630.html?mod=googlenews_wsj . I wonder if BPL thinks that the $2.6 bil is taxpayer money 'well spent'..

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2012 1:17:26 PM PST
Mark Leberer says:
EB: ..." that it can be applied to any scientific reality whatsoever."

ML: That may be true. It has been said however, that Liberal Scientists tend to be 'liberals first' and then scientists second, that they are true first to their ideology, and second to their science. I think the Climate-gate emails suggested this was indeed the case......

But then also Climatologists may be outside their field of expertise when they venture into areas like Environmental Economics..

Let me ask for example, why is the AGW crowd so strongly against the US developing it's vast energy resources... we have enough oil and Natural gas to last us 300 years...plenty of time to develop alternative energy sources and technologies it would seem... while keeping energy prices low enough to foster human flourishing...

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2012 1:36:49 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 20, 2012 1:44:02 PM PST
ML: Let me ask for example, why is the AGW crowd so strongly against the US developing it's vast energy resources... we have enough oil and Natural gas to last us 300 years...plenty of time to develop alternative energy sources and technologies it would seem... while keeping energy prices low enough to foster human flourishing...

TS:

Gee:
#1 You left off your credible source for near infinite supplies. From what I have read this is hogwash.

#2 Did you ever notice there is a huge consensus among the top scientists and experts that there is something -- called a global warming problem? Missed that?

Regarding #1 -- here is an older post of mine on this. Let me know if you have any more credible sources on it. And I do mean a credible source, not a Rush Limbaugh hack type, ok?

<<
There are more than enough untapped oil reserves to last at least a couple of hundred years. Look at how technology has advanced since 1900. Are all of you trying to tell me that we won't have alternative working fuels and transportation in the next fifty to one hundred years?

TS: Those are urban legends from what I read. I saw you didn't put out any citation/

<<1.the U.S. will be producing at most 5 million barrels per day for at least 10 years, and
2.today we use 20 million barrels a day so we need to import at least 15 million barrels.
The real question isn't how much oil is underground, what would it take to end oil imports. We won't end it by drilling more oil for at least 10 years (and even after 10 years it doesn't look good... unless we're not using 20 million/day by then).

The fact is that the U.S. has a little less than 21 billion barrels of oil left. It is hypothesized that there might be another 75 billion barrels which has not been found yet. Note that this is not a fact because it has not been proven to be true, and it's not even a theory because there is no scientific consensus that it is true (many geologists would disagree). How long will it last?

Well, hypothetically, the 21 billion barrels known to exist would take 11 years to produce if they could continue to produce it at the same rate as at present (which they cannot). However, the ratio is useful because it does illustrate that oil independence for the U.S. is a lost cause. If they did find something - and that is not a given - by the time they got it on-line (minimum 10 years), the current 21 billion barrels would almost be gone, and the additional oil would only cause a blip in the end of the decline curve. The hypothetical 75 billion barrels would only represent a hypothetical 10 years of consumption.

and

<<Bakken Formation is already discussed in this article, as a prospective resource. The USGS estimates 3-4.5 bn of prospective resource, NOT reserves. Rich Pollastro, a geologist for the USGS who worked on the Bakken assessment, said, "Our assessment is of `undiscovered, technically recoverable resources,' not economically recoverable resources. It will take tens of thousands of wells with `success' and `failure' to produce the resource we have estimated." The "400 billion barrel" estimate is an urban legend, an internet myth. The myth comes from a 1999 draft report by a now-deceased USGS employee, Leigh Price. Price was trying to assess the "oil generation potential" of the oil found in the pores of rocks and shale in the Bakken field, as well as the total content of how much oil might be pooling up - or "oil in place. Price was looking at 'oil generation potential,' and then, from that, trying to make an estimate of 'oil in place'...>>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oil_reserves_in_the_United_States

=============================================================================
As for Coal? yes, there is plenty of coal.

Are you aware it is mercury from the emissions of coal plants that is primarily responsible for the mercury contamination in fish?

And these levels are growing. There wasn't really a problem 50 years ago.

So is destroying fish as food just another area future generations need to accept for our current energy practices.
We'll tell them alternative erergy was just to expensive for us, right?
Can't pay any taxes for it, Why nothing would be worse than that.

And I haven't mentioned global warming yet.

In addition to CO2's warming effect in the air, it is already proven that the additional Co2 is causing acidification in the oceans. Coral reefs are dying off; There is concern it is affecting the small creatures that make up the food chain.

And worse, since the oceans have been a sink for up to 80% of the additional CO2 emissions in the past, there are worries the oceans are becoming saturated and will start releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere.

Hey anything to have our SUVS and the CHEAPEST gas possible right??? >>

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2012 1:40:48 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 20, 2012 1:52:04 PM PST
ML: As for "the largest international scientific conference of skeptics," Heartland will, according to the documents, spend all of $388,000 this year on the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. That's against the $6.5 million that the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change costs Western taxpayers annually, and the $2.6 billion the White House wants to spend next year on research into "the global changes that have resulted primarily from global over-dependence on fossil fuels." see http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204909104577233191850812630.html?mod=googlenews_wsj . I wonder if BPL thinks that the $2.6 bil is taxpayer money 'well spent'..

TS: Heartland doesn't conduct real science studies, nor accurately compiles them.
It is a right wing Libertartarian ideological organization that also used to fight anti-smoking regulations.

No surprises Rupert Murdoch's WSJ has another anti global warming article. He's done the same with his Austrailian owned newspaper.

Here is Wikipedia on the Heartland Institue:

<<The Heartland Institute is a conservative[2][3] and self-described libertarian[4][5] public policy think tank based in Chicago, Illinois which advocates free market policies. The Institute is designated as a 501(c)(3) non-profit by the Internal Revenue Service and advised by a 15 member board of directors, which meets quarterly. As of 2011, it has a full-time staff of 40, including editors and senior fellows.[4] The Institute was founded in 1984 and conducts research and advocacy work on issues including government spending, taxation, healthcare, tobacco policy, global warming, information technology and free-market environmentalism.

In the 1990s, the group worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question the science linking secondhand smoke to health risks, and to lobby against government public health reforms.[6][7][8] More recently, the Institute has focused on questioning the scientific consensus on climate change, has sponsored meetings of climate change skeptics,[9] and is now promoting public school curricula challenging the mainstream science on climate change.[10]

RECENTLY:

...

In 2008 a bibliography written by Dennis Avery was posted on Heartland's Web site, titled "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares,"[14][15] In late April 2008, Heartland reported that the web site DeSmogBlog had "targeted The Heartland Institute in late April 2008, and in particular two lists posted on Heartland's Web site of scientists whose published work contradicts some of the main tenets of global warming alarmism." [15] The Sydney Morning Herald reported that the work of Jim Salinger, chief scientist at New Zealand's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, was "misrepresented" as part of a "denial campaign".[16]

In response to criticism, The Heartland Institute changed the title of the list to "500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares." [15] Heartland did not remove any of the scientists' names from the list.[15][16] Dennis Avery explained, "Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptic"..."but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see."[15] Heartland's president, Joseph Bast, wrote "They have no right -- legally or ethically -- to demand that their names be removed from a bibliography composed by researchers with whom they disagree. Their names probably appear in hundreds or thousands of bibliographies accompanying other articles or in books with which they disagree. Do they plan to sue hundreds or thousands of their colleagues? The proper response is to engage in scholarly debate, not demand imperiously that the other side redact its publications."[15]

On February 14, 2012, a leak on the internet revealed internal documents from The Heartland Institute. The documents showed that the institute planned to provide climate sceptical materials to teachers in the USA to promote their ideas to school children. Furthermore, it can also be read, that climate sceptics were being paid by The Heartland Institute, namely the founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), physicist Fred Singer ($5,000 plus expenses per month), geologist Robert Carter ($1,667 per month) and a single pledge of $90,000 to meteorologist Anthony Watts. These payments have been verified by some of the scientists.[17] All the original documents can be viewed online. [18]

[AND OF COURSE HEARTLAND HAS A PARALLEL HISTORY ON SMOKING]

SMOKING
In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with Philip Morris to question the link between secondhand smoke and health risks.[7][19] Philip Morris used Heartland to distribute tobacco-industry material, and arranged for the Heartland Institute to publish "policy studies" which summarized Philip Morris reports.[19][20] The Heartland Institute also undertook a variety of other activities on behalf of Philip Morris, including meeting with legislators, holding "off-the-record" briefings, and producing op-eds, radio interviews, and letters.[19][21] In 1994, at the request of Philip Morris, the Heartland Institute met with Republican Congressmen to encourage them to oppose increases in the federal excise tax. Heartland reported back to Philip Morris that the Congressmen were "strongly in our camp", and planned further meetings with other legislators.[22]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute

Posted on Feb 20, 2012 1:49:51 PM PST
DonJuan says:
What'd I tell you omnireader

http://www.loop21.com/life/crazy-unemployed-are-filing-disability-when-benefits-run-out

Liberalism is becoming a mental disorder!
Discussion locked

Recent discussions in the Science forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  130
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  Feb 19, 2012
Latest post:  Dec 5, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 11 customers

Search Customer Discussions