- Login with Facebook to see what your friends are reading
- i
GM Funding of Climate Change-Denying Heartland Institute Creates Outrage With Environmentalists
The Huffington Post Sharon Silke Carty First Posted: 03/ 5/2012 4:48 pm Updated: 03/ 5/2012 9:57 pm
The recent disclosure that General Motors’ charitable arm has funded a think tank skeptical of climate change fueled an outcry among environmentalists. Now, an environmental group says it has collected 10,000 signatures urging the automaker to stop funding the Chicago-based Heartland Institute.
Internal documents leaked in February show that the General Motors Foundation — which the automaker says is funded separately from business operations — donated to the institute $15,000 in both 2010 and 2011, with another $15,00 expected in 2012.
Heartland, which identifies itself as a free-market think tank, has questioned the consensus around global warming through its newsletters, web site, and the support of scientists. Last year, the tagline for its annual conference on the subject was “Global Warming: Was It Ever Really A Crisis?”
GM spokesman Greg Martin said the automaker’s charitable arm supports groups which “foster careful and thoughtful debate.”
“We don’t necessarily see eye-to-eye with all these groups on all these issues,” he said. “But we try to take a position of engagement rather than building walls.”
All donations go through an annual review process, he said, and the automaker is currently assessing its funding for the Heartland Institute, as it does every year.
The bulk of Heartland’s funding comes from one anonymous donor, who has given the group $11 million since 2007.
Non-profit groups are not legally obligated to reveal their donors. In the past, Heartland has been transparent about its funding, posting a list of contributors on its web site, but took it down in 2004.
“Critics who couldn’t or wouldn’t engage in fair debate over our ideas found the donor list a convenient place to find the names of unpopular companies or foundations, which they used in ad hominem attacks against us,” the institute wrote after taking down the list. “After much deliberation and with some regret, we now keep confidential the identities of all our donors.”
GM is not the only automaker to fund Heartland: Ford and Chrysler have also contributed to the institute.
Forecast The Facts, an environmental group which encourages TV meteorologists to talk about global warming in broadcasts, supported the petition-signing efforts urging GM to stop funding the Heartland Institute. The donation is a “contradiction to GM’s public stance on climate change and its effort to reinvent itself around cars like the Chevy Volt,” said Daniel Souweine, Forecast The Facts’ campaign manager. “When taxpayers bailed out GM, this is not where they were expecting their money to go.”
But GM’s inconsistent positions on climate change should not be entirely surprising. Until 2010, one of the automaker’s top executives was a vocal opponent of climate change. Bob Lutz, who retired from GM as vice chairman and who is credited with developing the advanced hybrid Chevy Volt, has called global warming a “total crock.”
“The oceans were going to get hot. The Florida Keys are supposed to have disappeared by now,” he said last week on HBO’s “Real Time With Bill Maher.” Lutz said he’s so confident that global warming isn’t happening, he bought a house in the Keys, quipping “It’s supposed to be gone by now.”
Jim Lakely, a spokesman for Heartland, told The Huffington Post that the group does not deny the science behind climate change. “We are doing everything we can to promote scientific debate and public understanding of this important and complex topic,” he said. The group does not identify donors “in order to keep the focus on the issues we address,” he said.
As to the scandal behind the documents, a statement on the institute’s website says that the internal documents were stolen by someone posing as a member of the board, who asked for the material to be sent to a new email account. Since then, Peter Gleick, president and co-founder of the Pacific Institute, a climate research group, has confessed to the stunt , adding that he regrets his actions.
This story has been updated with a comment from the Heartland Institute.
| FerranPVilar 10.000 clientes de General Motors le piden que deje de financiar al Heartland Institute. http://t.co/QpQ9l5ty¿Y los demás think-tanks?
5 hours ago from SocialOomph
|
||
| FerranPVilar 10.000 clientes de General Motors le piden que deje de financiar al Heartland Institute. http://t.co/QpQ9l5ty¿Y los demás think-tanks?
5 hours ago from SocialOomph
|
||
| FerranPVilar 10.000 clientes de General Motors le piden que deje de financiar al Heartland Institute. http://t.co/QpQ9l5ty¿Y los demás think-tanks?
5 hours ago from SocialOomph
|
||
| FerranPVilar 10.000 clientes de General Motors le piden que deje de financiar al Heartland Institute. http://t.co/QpQ9l5ty¿Y los demás think-tanks?
4 hours ago from SocialOomph
|
||
| FerranPVilar 10.000 clientes de General Motors le piden que deje de financiar al Heartland Institute. http://t.co/QpQ9l5ty¿Y los demás think-tanks?
4 hours ago from SocialOomph
|
||
| gmdispatch Climate: GM fingered for support of Heartland Institute – Summit County Citizens Voice http://t.co/E5paZSWm
14 hours ago from HootSuite
|
||
| 2048ad RT @RyanMaue: According to @ForecastFacts, General Motors donated almost $300 million to the Heartland Institute last quarter to research cold fusion
17 hours ago from web
|
||
| RyanMaue According to @ForecastFacts, General Motors donated almost $300 million to the Heartland Institute last quarter to research cold fusion
20 hours ago from web
|
||
| gmdispatch GM’s funding of climate-change denying Heartland Institute stirs up trouble – Autoblog (blog) http://t.co/s299bo5C
2 days ago from HootSuite
|
||
Heartland Institute faces fresh scrutiny over tax status | Climate Shifts
10000 GM Owners Demand the Company Stop Funding the Heartland
General Motors and the Demise of Streetcars … – Heartland Institute
GM’s funding of climate-change denying Heartland Institute stirs up trouble
The Heartland Affair: A Climate Champion Cheats — and We All Lose
Leaks: Teaching schoolchildren climate change scepticism
GM-Peugeot Pact Heightens Pressure on Opel
| Today’s Markets | as of Mar 07, 4:32 PM EST |
HOT ON TWITTER
- Sid Harth
-
Share
30 personal results. 4,820 other results (0.48 seconds)Search Results
-
The Devil and a Dingbat: Sid Harth – cogito ergo sum
www.sidileak.us/2011/06/the-11.htmlJun 28, 2011 – Jun 27, 2011 – Everything you always wanted to know about my sister Eileen and more ….. Environmetal News (42), Global Warming (16), …
· Limited -
End of the World, Period: Sid Harth – cogito ergo sum
www.sidileak.us/2011/08/end-of-the-world-period.htmlAug 23, 2011 – mysistereileen.com/?p=1956 – Cached. 4 days ago – Jul 9, 2011 – Dec 1, 2009 – Subject: Re: The Truth About Global Warming: Sid Harth …
· Limited -
The Devil and a Dingbat: Sid Harth – blog*spot
thedevilandadingbatsidharth.blogspot.com/…/devil-and-dingbat-sid-h…Jul 9, 2011 – Jun 29, 2011 – Sid Harth · NSG MESSage: Sid Harth · @mysistereileen.com …. is that dealing with the purported problem of global warming is …
You shared this · Public -
Burn, Baby Burn: Sid Harth « My Sister Eileen
mysistereileen.com/?p=56Jan 17, 2012 – Starred results for @mysistereileen.com cogito ergo sum . …. to George W. Bush’s attempt to suppress global warming science (this subject is a …
You +1′d this -
Devil-may-care: Sid Harth: End of the World, Oops, Climate Change …
devilmaycaresidharth.blogspot.com/…/end-of-world-oops-climate-ch…Aug 30, 2011 – Aug 23, 2011 – Everything you always wanted to know about my sister Eileen and more … The Truth About Global Warming: Sid Harth …
You shared this · Public -
Fin du Monde: Sid Harth – Are we There yet, Oops, 2012?: Sid Harth
bakulaji.typepad.com/are_we_there_yet_oops_201/…/f-10.htmlSep 7, 2011 – Starred results for Sid Harth “sid harth” Global Warming … and evolution. … Oops, Climate Change: Sid Harth | My Sister Eileen: Sid Harth .
-
The Devil and a Dingbat: Sid Harth – cogito ergo sum – TypePad
bakulaji.typepad.com/…/the-devil-and-a-dingbat-sid-harth-3.htmlJul 9, 2011 – Jun 29, 2011 – Sid Harth · NSG MESSage: Sid Harth · @mysistereileen.com …. is that dealing with the purported problem of global warming is …
-
Climate Change and I « Bookle+
www.topcogitoergosum.com/?p=107This site may harm your computer.
Dec 12, 2011 – mysistereileen.com/?p=2143. Jul 28, 2011 – The Truth About Global Warming: Sid Harth … Jul 9, 2011 – Starred results for Sid Harth “Sid … -
Fin du Monde – Sid Harth Sid Harth
www.sidharthsidharth.com/?p=684This site may harm your computer.
Sep 7, 2011 – Aug 18, 2011 – tarred results for Sid Harth “sid harth” Global Warming … Show more results from mysistereileen.com … -
Google Bookmarks
https://www.google.com/…/find?…%40mysistereileen…With Bookmarks, you’ll be able to: Save time with quick links to your favorite websites,. Use Web History to find the sites you visit frequently and bookmark your …
Ads - Why these ads?
|
This comment is pending approval and won’t be displayed until it is approved.
You may not like my comment. It is not the time to worry about climate change issue. It is a sink hole, economy, that would sink the nation faster than climate change.
I am the most ferocious defender of Climate change scientists. I have written, posted and researched the subject, endlessly. I am on record.
Unfortunately, all that record may have vanished. My 75 domains were hacked last week.
Search Google:
@mysistereileen.com global warning
…and I am Sid Harth@mysistereileen.com
Here is a very rational ( IMO) reason to be concerned about GM giving aid and comfort to groups advocating that we turn a blind eye to climate: We all depend on climate to live.
Because of their apparent need to defend and support the burning of fossil resources to make heat, groups such as the Heartland Institute have taken a position that there is no need to be concerned about climate and therefore, presumably, no need to be concerned about the use of coal, natural gas, and petroleum to make heat.
Like air, water, and food, we are dependent on climate. A prudent society desiring to survive in a turbulent cosmos will spend a certain amount of its resources to ensure that competent, trained scientists are keeping their eye on climate, and on air, and on water, and on food. Turning a blind eye to these things makes no sense unless you relish war, famine, and ultimately, extinction. Advocating that we ignore climate, like the Heartland Institute does, is unintelligent. Casting false doubt on good science for the purpose of gaining or maintaining wealth is criminal.
Using the practices known as “economics” to focus on the creation of quarterly profits, in some endless 18th century bid to create material wealth for a few, becomes especially pointless if, by ignoring climate science, we all one day disastrously run out of a sufficient supply of food and water.
So it’s OK for environmental groups such as the Sierra Club to take money from oil companies engaged in fracking, but it’s not OK for General Motors to support open debate about a controversial subject such as climate change?
Do environmental groups not believe in the free exchange of ideas? Do environmental groups set themselves up as the arbiters of “proper” speech and discourse?
Who voted for environmental groups as our representatives?
” … but it’s not OK for General Motors to support open debate about a controversial subject such as climate change?”
I don’t know what the Sierra club does, and I don’t care.
But I do know that climate change is not a controversial subject among among scientists who study the matter. It’s only controversial because of a propaganda campaign designed to “sow doubt”.
In science, not all opinions are created equal. Expertise matters, and Nature tells everyone if you’re right or not. It’s abundantly clear by now that the atmospheric physicists are right — the planet is warming, rapidly and dangerously, because of anthropogenic carbon dioxide.
Climate change is only a controversial subject because it’s made out to be by Heartland and their ilk. That’s their whole raison d’être. They’re in the business of sowing doubt and manufacturing debate. Far from promoting “the free exchange of ideas”, they’re engaged in the calculated and systematic dissemination of misinformation and propaganda on behalf of corporate interests.
Sorry Palindrom. My reply was meant for Michael A Lewis.
Heartland Institute “Expert” Hides the Global Warming Incline
Michael A. Lewis: “it’s not OK for General Motors to support open debate…?”
“Open debate” that does not mislead the public is one thing; the promotion of anti-science propaganda is quite another.
The Heartland Institute and their climate science “experts” promote climate science disinformation.
For example, Heartland Institute global warming “expert” Dr. Robert M “Bob” Carter has committed de facto global warming fraud by misrepresenting increasing global temperature trend lines as flat.*
And yet, per just-released Heartland Denialgate documents Bob Carter is on the Heartland payroll to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars a year. This, despite the claim on Heartland’s website that Carter receives “no research funding from special interest organisations”.**
Do you agree Michael Lewis that Bob Carter has committed de facto global warming fraud by misrepresenting increasing global temperature trend lines as flat?
If you disagree please provide a scientifically-valid explanation for Bob Carter’s gross misrepresentation of scientific data – thank you.
——————
* http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/bob_carters_trend_lines.php
** http://heartland.org/robert-m-carter
Flagged as spam!
Netdr aka Neptune2: ”Flagged as spam.”
…says Netdr, a “skeptic” who has repeatedly run away from addressing prominent global warming “skeptic” Bob Carter’s de facto global warming fraud,* and who evidently wants to censor discussion of said de facto fraud.
Funny how so-called global warming “skeptics” — including Netdr, Orkneygal, Richard2 and Jdey123 — repeatedly run away from addressing Bob Carter’s de facto fraud.
Even Tom Harris, the Executive Director of the “skeptical” International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC), has repeatedly refused** to address Bob Carter’s de facto fraud — despite the fact that Bob Carter is the ICSC’s Chief Science Adviser.
Tom Harris, a mechanical engineer by training, is like Bob Carter a Heartland Institute “expert”, and Harris and Carter’s “skeptical” ICSC is a Heartland funding recipient.
It’s a small climate science denier world.
—————–
* http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/bob_carters_trend_lines.php
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/bob-carter-does-his-business/
** http://tinyurl.com/3sorupq ; http://tinyurl.com/3tcp5ts
Looks like the who’s who from ‘who killed the electric car’
Robco1
So, Jim Lakey of the Heartland Institute said that they “promote scientific debate and public understanding” of climate change… was that what he was doing when he posed as his sock puppet AGWScam here on HuffPo and spread often-debunked denier memes, then “defend the honor” of Heartland as himself?
Got to give the devil his due. He sure has a cushy gig. No need to research the client or craft a custom core message; just slam a few beers and copy a couple of lines from “Atlas Shrugged” and you’re done! Heck, Milloy and APCO Worldwide already did all the heavy lifting years ago!
Equally easy to see why they’re sicking the sock puppet army on stories like this. Disinformation just hates daylight…
–John Mashey, a retired computer scientist and Silicon Valley executive, said he filed a complaint to the IRS this week that said Heartland’s public relations and lobbying efforts violated its non-profit status.–
http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=7022
Looks like the tax man cometh, Jimbo. I feel for you. No, really I do.
chrisd3
netdr/Neptune et al repeatedly calls climate science “Lysenkoism”. Chris Mooney debunks that idea; paraphrased here for space reasons:
Lysenko’s views were promoted in party newspapers. Climate science is published in peer-reviewed journals. (Climate science “skepticism”, on the other hand, is almost entirely published in amateur blogs and right-wing media.)
Lysenkoism flourished because Stalin mandated it, which he was able to do because he ruled a totalitarian state. The idea that this could happen in the global scientific community is risible. No one is running the show.
Individuals were imprisoned and killed for non-adherence to Lysenkoism. No “skeptics” have been imprisoned or killed.
The scientific process eventually discredited Lysenko. The same scientific process has repeatedly confirmed that our activities are warming the planet.
In sum, the claim is a complete joke.
Mooney’s full article:
http://www.desmogblog.com/which-climate-skeptics-drop-lysenko-bomb-no-i-m-not-kidding
.
Lysenkoism is a perfect example of the bandwagon effect run amuck just as Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global Warming [CAGW] has.
Lysenkoism was a scientific concept that acquired traits could be passed from parent to child. We now know this cannot be true but all scientific societies in Russia at one time endorsed this flawed concept.
Learned papers were written and awards given for those that favored Lysenkoism and writing a paper or doing an experiment that might disprove Lysenkoism was a way to end a career.
A list of a dozen learned societies which endorsed Lysenkoism would be easy to compile since they all depended upon the government for funding and the government was in love with the theory. All top scientists in the field agreed.
The head of Russia [Stalin] was behind it 100 % and since the state was the main source of funds for research studies were done that validated the theory. Those that were skeptical of the theory were “branded deniers” or tools of the capitalists [big oil].
Since only studies which validated the theory were done and since all studies showed what was wanted lysenkoism became more and more accepted.
The parallels between lysenkoism and global warming are so obvious that only the blind cannot see them. The scientific process can be and has been bent to the will of the politicians by the simple use of money and fame.
Robco1
“Only the blind cannot see things my way?” Your tinfoil is showing.
–It does seem to me that the right’s climate denialism hasn’t been properly linked to the larger phenomenon of epistemic closure on the right. When Jim Manzi, everyone’s favorite sensible conservative, criticized fellow conservative Mark Levin for peddling intellectually shoddy skeptic arguments in his bestselling book Liberty and Tyranny, Levin went nuts, joined by a half-dozen other NRO writers. How could they not? The very same skeptic talking points in Levin’s book appear in thousands of blogs and comment sections across the interwebs. If they are intellectually bankrupt, a whole lot of people are going to look stupid.–
http://grist.org/article/2010-09-09-the-rights-climate-denialism-is-part-of-something-much-larger/
Pathetic.
Netdr has Lysenkoism and its relationship to modern-day global warming “skeptism” backwards.
Trofim Lysenko rejected the mainstream scientific theory of Mendelian genetics – he was a “skeptic” of the overwhelming scientific consensus. Because Lysenko’s “skeptical” position supported and could be used to reinforce the Soviet Union’s political agenda, the Soviet government pushed the anti-science propaganda that Mendelian genetics was a gigantic hoax perpetrated on the people by the larger scientific community, and portrayed the “skeptical” Lysenko as a defender of Truth against scientific corruption.
Nothing could have been further from the truth, of course - Lysenko was not a new Galileo but instead a poltical opportunist and scientific fraud, as everyone who was freely educated in the science around the world was well aware.
The believers in Lysenkoism and the state that supported it did their best to destroy the careers of those that believed in genes.
Sound familiar?
NO.
Robco1
Yup.
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/03/09/207662/inhofe-watts-horner-mcintyre-michael-mann-email/
lbsaltzman
We are in the Middle of corporate warfare threatening the survival of our species and our civilization. The short term greed of most large corporations must be stopped through regulation.
x2
Well, GM reaches out to front groups (why are these people not paying taxes & calling themselves charities?) yet does not reach out to environmental charities. So, I’m not buying the GM story here….
Where’s Lakely when you need him?
Off in some laboratory promoting scientific debate I suppose.
Robco1
Still mourning the loss of his accounts on HP when he was astroturfing as AGWScam and “defending his honor” as himself. I suppose that is what he calls “honest debate.”
Heartland is a PR firm.
waltifarian
Robco1: Where can I find out more on this topic, i.e. Lakely lurking and spammenting at HP?
Meanwhile,
11 of the 14 largest corporations on Earth, including all six of the largest oil corporations (Exxon, BP, Shell, Chevron, PetroChina, and PetroBras) have greenhouse gas mitigation programs.
While, big surprise, the three largest corporations that don’t (COMMUNIST China Construction Bank, COMMUNIST Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, and insurance holding company Berkshire Hathaway (Geico), are all major coal investors.
Sadly for GM, our government had to bail them out, otherwise our entire auto industry would have disappeared. Yet, also sadly for GM and the rest of our auto companies, none of them are now among the world’s 14 largest.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/maxwells/climate-change-denial_b_1247804_134263419.html
The nine of the ten richest people on Earth, including Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Carlos Slim (world’s richest), Kristy Walton, Amancio Ortega, etc. say they believe in man-made global warming and have invested billions towards solutions.
For details, see my posts at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-heilig/climate-change-denial_b_1247804.html
WESmith
In an antique store, I found Exxon literature (maps) from the 1980s where Exxon states that they had done research into “global warming,” the average global temperature is rising and it is possible that man is contributing to this temperature change. Their solution was energy efficiency and science technology. I don’t think their policy has changed in 40 years.
I think what Exxon denies is that making a new commodity on Wall Street is an answer. Actually, that is quite dumb. Exxon would make millions of dollars in this Ponzi Scheme (I mean Pelosi Scheme). Also, creating a new tax just for the top 5 American Oil companies would be detrimental to Exxon. They pay 48% corporate taxes overseas. If they had to pay 37% more in the US, their profit margin (9.3%) would be lower than Walmarts (3.9%).
Cap and trade fixed the acid rain problem. Nobody squawked about that.
NYTimes, April 26, 1988:
———————–
INDUSTRIAL GROUP PLANS TO BATTLE CLIMATE TREATY
By JOHN H. CUSHMAN Jr
Industry opponents of a treaty to fight global warming have drafted an ambitious proposal to spend millions of dollars to convince the public that the environmental accord is based on shaky science.
Among their ideas is a campaign to recruit a cadre of scientists who share the industry’s views of climate science and to train them in public relations so they can help convince journalists, politicians and the public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify controls on greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide that trap the sun’s heat near Earth…
Documents describing the proposal to undermine the mainstream view were given to The New York Times by the National Environmental Trust…
Industry representatives confirmed that the documents were authentic… The document listed representatives of the Exxon Corporation, the Chevron Corporation and the Southern Company as being involved…
The draft plan, recently discussed at the oil industry offices, calls for giving such dissenters on climate science ”the logistical and moral support they have been lacking.”
It also calls for spending $5 million over two years to ”maximize the impact of scientific views consistent with ours on Congress, the media and other key audiences.”
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/26/us/industrial-group-plans-to-battle-climate-treaty.html
AGW “Skeptics”: God Protects Us From Global Warming
Prominent global warming “skeptics” including Roy Spencer (a climate scientist favored by “skeptics”), Ross McKitrick (economist and purported “hockey stick” slayer), and Joseph D’Aleo (weatherman / Icecap blog) preach that per the Bible God protects from global warming, along with other fudamentalist Christian signatories of the Cornwall Alliance’s “Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming”:
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/blog/item/prominent-signers-of-an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/
Roy Spencer is moreover on the Cornwall Alliance For The Stewardship Of Creation’s Board of Advisers:
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/about/board-of-advisors/
More from the Cornwall Alliance on their belief that per Biblical prophesy God will protect us from global warming:
———————–
The world is in the grip of an idea: that burning fossil fuels… is causing global warming that will be so dangerous that we must stop it by reducing our use…
We believe that idea… fails the tests of theology… with a worldview of the Earth and its climate system contrary to that taught in the Bible…
God’s wisdom, power, and faithfulness justify confidence that Earth’s ecosystems are robust and will, by God’s providence, accomplish the purposes He set for them.
————————
http://tinyurl.com/27murl6 (pdf)
daultman463: “You are dealing with a religon on climate change”
Science denier irony is eternal.
The blatant Lysenkoistic attacks upon Dr Spencer just proves that the fish fear him, or rather his ideas which they cannot disprove.
Spencer and Braswell 2011 proves that the theoretical positive feedback upon which CAGW is dependent is really negative.
Without positive feedback CAGW is impossible !
Spencer and Braswell’s 2011 paper has been thoroughly debunked by other climate scientists.
http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/Dessler2011.pdf
http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/09/06/roy-spencer-persecuted-by-own-data/
It was demonstrated to be such poor science that the editor of the scientific journal that published it – a relatively new journal with little to no expertise in climate science — resigned in an attempt to save the journal’s reputation.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14768574
Spencer analyzed satellite data incorrectly for years until his work was audited by other scientists.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/18/science/earth/18CLIM.html
http://tinyurl.com/5r47ed
Spencer has more generally been repeatedly debunked by other climate scientists, including an extensive take-down by Republican Barry Bickmore:
http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/roy-spencers-great-blunder-part-1/
Spencer is a Board member of Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, which preaches that per the Bible God will protect us from global warming:
———————–
The world is in the grip of an idea: that burning fossil fuels… is causing global warming that will be so dangerous that we must stop it by reducing our use…
We believe that idea… fails the tests of theology… with a worldview of the Earth and its climate system contrary to that taught in the Bible…
————————
http://tinyurl.com/27murl6 (pdf)
Spencer is a Creationist.
http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony2.php
Netdr: “…CAGW…”
“CAGW” = denier-speak for “catastrophic” AGW.
“CAGW” is not a scientific term.
Define in a scientifically-testable manner you mean by “catastrophic” in this context, Netdr.
———————————————————————
The 4 Stages of Global Warming Denial
1) GW deniers: “There is no global warming!”
GW deniers + acknowledgment that the globe is warming =
2) AGW deniers: “Of course there is global warming – we skeptics have never said otherwise. But humans aren’t causing it!”
AGW deniers + acknowledgment that humans are causing global warming =
3) “CAGW” deniers: “Ok, sure, humans are causing global warming. But AGW can’t cause a catastrophe!”
“CAGW” deniers + irrefutably AGW-related “catastrophe” =
4) “CAGWW” (“CAGW” warning) deniers:
“Why didn’t you warn us?”
Good for GM.
An open discussion of the catastrophe [NOT] is long overdue.
I will probably buy a GM car next.
Heartland Institute “Expert” Hides the Global Warming Incline
Dear Neptune2 aka Netdr*,
Isn’t Heartland Institute global waming “expert” Dr. Robert M “Bob” Carter committing de facto global warming fraud by misrepresenting increasing global temperature trend lines as flat?**
Isn’t that like a climate science scam, a global warming hoax, a blatant and indefensible lie?
If you disagree please provide a scientifically-valid explanation for Bob Carter’s gross misrepresentation of scientific data.
Please answer question, Netdr*, instead of continuing to run away from it – thank you.
Bob Carter is a leader of and/or major contributor to several of the most prominent organizations that are “skeptical” of man-made global warming, including:
* The Heartland Institute
* The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI)
* The Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
* The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)
* The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)
* The International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)
——————
* “Neptune2″ is one of Netdr’s many HuffPo personas.
http://www.monbiot.com/2011/02/23/robot-wars/
** http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/bob_carters_trend_lines.php
I don’t know what Bob Carter believes, take it up with him !
Your own trend-lines show either cooling or negligible warming for all 5 data sets since 2001.
These are the trends if 5 sets of climate data from 2001 to the present.
Notice that 2 are negative and #1 would take 10,000 years to make any difference.
#1) Least squares trend line; slope = 0.000644556 per year
#2) Least squares trend line; slope = -0.00610265 per year
3) #Least squares trend line; slope = -0.00615866 per year
4) #Least squares trend line; slope = 0.00448098 per year
5) Least squares trend line; slope = 0.0030497 per year
Neptune2: “I don’t know what Bob Carter believes, take it up with him !”
I didn’t ask you what Bob Carter “believes” – I asked you if you think Bob Carter has committed de facto global warming fraud.
Let’s try again:
Isn’t Heartland Institute global waming “expert” Dr. Robert M “Bob” Carter committing de facto global warming fraud by misrepresenting increasing global temperature trend lines as flat?**
If you disagree please provide a scientifically-valid explanation for Bob Carter’s gross misrepresentation of scientific data.
Please answer question, Netdr*, instead of continuing to run away from it – thank you.
——————
* “Neptune2″ is one of Netdr’s many HuffPo personas.
http://www.monbiot.com/2011/02/23/robot-wars/
** http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/bob_carters_trend_lines.php
Netdr aka Neptune2:
{{{ … crickets … }}}
Funny how so-called global warming “skeptics” including Netdr/Neptune2, Orkneygal, Richard2 and Jdey123 predictably and repeatedly run away from addressing prominent global warming “skeptic” Bob Carter’s de facto global warming fraud.*
Even Tom Harris, the Executive Director of the Heartland-funded “skeptical” International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC), has repeatedly run away on HuffPo from addressing Bob Carter’s de facto fraud** — despite the fact that Bob Carter is the ICSC’s Chief Science officer.
Speaking of Mr. Tom Harris — who is not a climate scientist but instead has a masters degree in mechanical engineering — Harris made recent headlines as detailed in a report by the Canadian Committee for the Advancement of Scientific Scepticism for teaching climate science disinformation at a public university:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/28/heartland-associate-climate-scepticism-ottawa-university
It’s a small climate science denier world.
———-
* http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/bob_carters_trend_lines.php
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/bob-carter-does-his-business/
** http://tinyurl.com/3sorupq
http://tinyurl.com/3tcp5ts
The INQUISITION continues. On ‘Climate Change’, if you don’t accept the position of the ‘scientists/’ that make the most noise about this, you are a heretic. No differences of opinion are to be tolerated anywhere.
Republican climate scientist has received a “frenzy of hate” mail for speaking out against the GOP groupthink:
——————————-
MIT Climate Scientist Receives Frenzy of Hate Mail
January 2012
Prominent MIT researcher Kerry Emanuel has been receiving an unprecedented “frenzy of hate” after a video featuring an interview with him was published…
Emails contained “veiled threats against my wife,” and other “tangible threats,” Emanuel said… “They were vile, these emails. They were the kind of emails nobody would like to receive.”
“What was a little bit new about it was dragging family members into it and feeling that my family might be under threat”…
The video… documented a climate change conference run by a group of Republican voters upset by their party’s anti-science rhetoric…
In one clip, Emanuel says, “It makes me feel to some extent disgusted with politics and to some extent ashamed to be an American.”…
[Science denier blog] Climate Depot posted Emanuel’s email address.
Emanuel notes that in the full video, he went on to explain that the Republican candidates “have either been misled, in which case it’s not great to be part of the political system where candidates for the president of the United States could be so misled on such an important issue, or they were dishonest, which [is] equally bad in my view: How could we live in a country where candidates are being dishonest about an issue of such importance?”
http://tinyurl.com/74larxf
Nonsense. 97% of scientist have verified data that climate change is taking place and that humans are if not entirely the cause then at least adding substantially to the effect. Now you don’t have to accept that it’s your perogative but I’ve seen no inquisition of any kind. Derision for stupidity yes.
What? I thought GM was just a pet project of Obama? Are all the righties lying to me again?
By the way, Lutz is a putz.
So skepticism of CAGW must be suppressed ?
Is everyone who questions it a shill for big oil ?
Those who convincingly question the orthodoxy have their accounts on Hufpro blocked no matter how polite the are.
Is that freedom of speech ?
YES AND YES my friend. The reason a lot more people daily have problems with all these experts. You are dealing with a religon on climate change and you are not allowed to think otherwise.
Katmandu01
What you dismissively refer to as “all these experts” in fact comprises every credible scientific body that has studied the issue of anthropogenic global warming including NASA, NOAA, the American Geophysical Union, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and every national scientific academy in the world including the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society of London. Every one of them endorses the validity of the theory of anthropogenic global warming and is warning us of the consequences it poses for humanity. Dismissing them as you do is like the chain smoker shrugging off the warnings of cancer specialists by saying, “What do those doctors know anyway?” Saying this is a religion is nothing but empty rhetoric and buddy, you’re allowed to think what you like.
chrisd3
“So skepticism of CAGW must be suppressed ”
No, lies and fraud should not be supported financially. Spot the difference?
“Those who convincingly question the orthodoxy have their accounts on Hufpro blocked no matter how polite the are”
And there is another lie. An obvious one, too. All you have to do is look at any climate-related posts and see all the “skeptical” comments. There must be hundreds of thousands of them by now. The guy who responded to you here–an obvious “skeptic”–has somehow managed to hang on to his account since mid-2009.
I have no inside information on the precise reason why your accounts (multiple) were unplugged, but my guess would be your spamming the exact same comments over and over and over again, verbatim, combined with your admission that you do this to “annoy warmists”, combined with your reckless disregard for truth. And I’m not talking about your differing “opinion”, I’m talking about actual truth. You post stuff that is factually incorrect and/or irrelevant, and you know it because you’ve admitted it.
But your posts contain so much spam you could open a restaurant and your account hasn’t been blocked.
You could be one of the root posters we have been warned about !
I have never made a claim I knew to be incorrect have you ?
The people who are working to deny climate change are the same people who fought the facts on issues like tobacco, secondhand smoke, asbestos, acid rain, and the ozone hole.
http://failuremag.com/index.php/feature/article/merchants_of_doubt/