NIPCC report on global warming...

[DanG 1]

Quote

Bingo!
Think about it.

I thought about it.

Your point is stupid.

- Dan G

[brenthutch 444]

So....you think the concept of bridge fuels is stupid?

[DanG 1]

Quote

So....you think the concept of bridge fuels is stupid?

I think your characterization of coal as a bridge fuel is stupid.

But you knew that's what I meant. If you have a point, just make it.

- Dan G

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Bridging from what, whale blubber? ...

ROFLMAO...

We are all engines of karma

[rushmc 23]

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/04/09/new-report-claims-un-findings-on-climate-change-is-just-bunch-hot-air/

Quote

A U.N.-commissioned panel says climate change is hurting the growth of crops, affecting the quality of water supplies and forcing wildlife to change the way it lives – but what if it’s all just smoke and mirrors?

A new report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), written by an international collection of scientists and published by the conservative Heartland Institute, claims just that, declaring that humanity's impact on climate is not causing substantial harm to the Earth.



“All across the planet, the historical increase in the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration has stimulated vegetative productivity,” reads a portion of the 1,063-page report, called “Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts.” “This observed stimulation, or greening of the Earth, has occurred in spite of many real and imagined assaults on Earth’s vegetation, including fires, disease, pest outbreaks, deforestation and climatic change.”

The Heartland Institute says more than 30 scientists served as authors and reviewers for the new report, which it claims cites more than 1,000 peer-reviewed studies supporting the belief that climate change is not detrimental to the biosphere. The Heartland Institute describes itself as a think tank promoting public policy "based on individual liberty, limited government and free markets."

The panel of scientists says human impact on the global climate is small, changing temperatures are within a historic scope of temperature variables and there is no net harm to human health of the production of food.

mine

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,119]

>http://www.foxnews.com/...-just-bunch-hot-air/
>The Heartland Institute . . . .

===============
The Heartland Institute
Wikipedia

The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank based in Chicago, which states that it advocates free market policies. . . .

In the 1990s, the group worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question serious cancer risks to secondhand smoke, and to lobby against government public-health reforms. More recently, the Institute has focused on questioning the science of human-caused climate change, and was described by the New York Times as "the primary American organization pushing climate change skepticism." The Institute has sponsored meetings of climate change skeptics, and has been reported to promote public school curricula challenging the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change.

. . .

. . .
In 2013 the Institute falsely portrayed a translation of one of its documents on global warming by the Chinese Academy of Sciences as a major shift towards skepticism by China's leaders.This was despite a preface in the translation saying it was to help them understand the public debate and was not an endorsement of the position contained in the document.

. . .

On May 4, 2012, the institute launched a digital billboard ad campaign in the Chicago area featuring a photo of Ted Kaczynski, (the "Unabomber" whose mail bombs killed three people and injured 23 others), and asking the question, “I still believe in global warming, do you?” The institute planned for the campaign to feature murderer Charles Manson, communist leader Fidel Castro and perhaps Osama bin Laden, asking the same question. In a statement, the institute justified the billboards saying "the most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen."

.. . . .

MediaTransparency reported that Heartland received funding from politically conservative foundations such as the Castle Rock Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.In 2011, the Institute received $25,000 from the Charles G. Koch Foundation. The Charles Koch Foundation states that the contribution was "$25,000 to the Heartland Institute in 2011 for research in healthcare, not climate change, and this was the first and only donation the Foundation made to the institute in more than a decade".

Oil and gas companies have contributed to the Heartland Institute, including over $600,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005.. . .

In February 2012, environmentalist scientist and president of the Pacific Institute, Peter Gleick, obtained internal Heartland Institute documents by deceptive means, and divulged them, together with an additional document that he later claimed to have received from an unknown source, to public websites. The documents contained the 2012 Heartland budget, a fundraising plan and board materials. The documents disclosed the names of a number of donors to the institute – including the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, tobacco companies Altria and Reynolds American, drug firms GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer and Eli Lilly, Microsoft, liquor companies, and an anonymous donor who had given $13 million over the past five years. Some of the documents also contained details of payments to climate skeptics and financial support to skeptics' research programs, 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 M. Carter and a pledge of $90,000 to meteorologist Anthony Watts. Carter and Watts confirmed receiving payments.The documents also indicated that the institute planned to provide materials to teachers in the United States to undercut the teaching of global warming in schools. The documents also appeared to disclose Heartland's plans for "Operation Angry Badger", in which $612,000 was to be allocated for activities related to Wisconsin's recall elections.
=====================================

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Never mind that one of the key authors was a director for Peabody Energy and another one thinks second hand smoke has no adverse health effects.

[rushmc 23]

this is just as telling

https://www.google.com/search?q=Who+attacks++The+Heartland+Institute&newwindow=1&safe=active&ei=PqlFU4a8DoKOyAHa04GYBQ&start=0&sa=N&biw=1680&bih=933


maybe more so

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

some of those results are about Heartland attacking

[billvon 3,119]

>Never mind that one of the key authors was a director for Peabody Energy and
>another one thinks second hand smoke has no adverse health effects.

" . . . among many other risks, including secondhand smoke. We have seen that secondhand smoke does have some correlation to emphysema in cases of . . . ."
(psst)
"I'm talking here. As I was saying, second hand smoke does have some . . . ."
(psst you have three million dollars in Philip Morris stock)
"As I was saying, secondhand smoke poses NO RISK to other people who are exposed to it. Any questions?"

[rushmc 23]

SkyDekker

some of those results are about Heartland attacking

the point is that it never matters who the denier group is
They get the same treatment all the time so
I pay little attention to those who attack the group and ignore the issue
It is fine the gov give billions to so called green compaines that go belly up but let us not talk bad about AWG

Fact of life but fun to point this out and see the results
The predictable results

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

rushmc

***some of those results are about Heartland attacking

the point is that it never matters who the denier group is
They get the same treatment all the time so
I pay little attention to those who attack the group and ignore the issue
It is fine the gov give billions to so called green compaines that go belly up but let us not talk bad about AWG

Fact of life but fun to point this out and see the results
The predictable results

They get the same treatment because they give the same results.

They get the same treatment as doctors funded by big tobacco.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

" . . . among many other risks, including secondhand smoke. We have seen that secondhand smoke does have some correlation to emphysema in cases of . . . ."
(psst)
"I'm talking here. As I was saying, second hand smoke does have some . . . ."
(psst you have three million dollars in Philip Morris stock)
"As I was saying, secondhand smoke poses NO RISK to other people who are exposed to it. Any questions?"

Are you saying that second hand smoke has something significant to do with AGW? Just double checking here...

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

They get the same treatment as doctors funded by big tobacco.

I'm not saying you might not have a point, but this thread is about global warming. Do you feel tobacco, doctors and AGW are connected in any meaningful way? If not, please keep a focus here. Thanks.

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 3,119]

>Are you saying that second hand smoke has something significant to do with
>AGW? Just double checking here...

In terms of science? No.

In terms of how the denial industry operates? Definitely. Same people, same methods, same goals.

[wmw999 2,589]

It is, but the point of the post in question was that people who are paid by someone generally take that someone's interests into account when advocating. Seemed to work with cigarettes, and it might just work that way with climate change as well.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[lawrocket 3]

When the underlying points cannot be critiqued then attack Heartland.

Yep. Because there's science (people who advocate the point of view we want) and then there are those who don't deserve to be heeded.

Because science is advanced by squelching all opposing views.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,119]

>When the underlying points cannot be critiqued then attack Heartland.

So you'd take a Greenpeace article as seriously as a report in Nature? You'd really give equal weight to both of them?

>Because science is advanced by squelching all opposing views.

Science is advanced by listening to opposing views and either affirming or rejecting them, not by lying about them (which the Heartland Institute has done) or by taking money to have a certain view (which they have also done.) That is the antithesis of science.

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]In terms of how the denial industry operates? Definitely. Same people, same methods, same goals.

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

>When the underlying points cannot be critiqued then attack Heartland.

So you'd take a Greenpeace article as seriously as a report in Nature? You'd really give equal weight to both of them?

If the study in nature claimed that Orcas are extinct from the coast of Greenland and a Greenpeace article came out the next year that has a bunch of pictures of a pod of Orcas with Sermitsiaq or Nuuk in the background, I'd tend to actually give greater weight to the Greenpeace article. Sure, the Nature study may have had some nice peer review. But evidence - actual hard evidence to counter the study's conclusions - is mighty weighty.

I'm no friend of Greenpeace. But I'll actually read what they have to say.


[Quote]Science is advanced by listening to opposing views and either affirming or rejecting them

Agree wholeheartedly.

[Quote]not by lying about them (which the Heartland Institute has done)

So you're saying the NIPCC reports are fraudulent and fabricated? Point to the examples.

[Quote]or by taking money to have a certain view (which they have also done.) That is the antithesis of science.

Wait. You just wrote that science is rejecting or affirming points of view. Now you are saying that a point of view need not be rejected if a person is paid for a certain point of view? That's some pretty dissonant cognizance there, Bill.

You are justifying non-compliance with scientific methods. Not viewing the science but rather attacking the scientist.

Note: how about an example of an organization whose mission statement only accepts one point of view? You know, one that accepts something as a given:
""The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential and options for adaptation and mitigation.""

So if you don't believe in, say, the need for adaptation to and mitigation for human-induced climate change, you don't have a job with the IPCC. Period.

What are your thoughts on this? Doesn't this fit what you call "the antithesis of science?". Answer: it does. Because the IPCC is a political body. ("Intergovernmental" is actually in the name of it)

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Stumpy 284]

lawrocket

You mean one side that has data and observations and another side having hope and models and predictions that are being hammered by the observations?

And if you keep saying this, maybe eventually it will become true rather than being wishful thinking.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[Stumpy 284]

hey - at least the heartland institute (aka far right mouthpiece) now agree climate change is happening. Baby steps I guess.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[rushmc 23]

Stumpy

hey - at least the heartland institute (aka far right mouthpiece) now agree climate change is happening. Baby steps I guess.

Nobody I know or see here says change is not happening
(but maybe if you keep saying they are it will become true)

the debate, (if they is such a thing with this religion of the alarmists) relates to the cause
I think it is more natural than artificially caused by man

but I know this is not the view of left wing mouthpieces,

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

When the underlying points cannot be critiqued then attack Heartland.

I am not attacking Heartland. They are doing what they are supposed to be doing. What they are getting paid to do.

I don't believe that being unbiased is part of their job description. Hence, it is hard to believe their report is unbiased.

I wouldn't argue the health effects of smoking with a doctor paid by tobacco, because it would be utterly pointless. So why would I argue a report from Heartland?

[lawrocket 3]

Stumpy

***
You mean one side that has data and observations and another side having hope and models and predictions that are being hammered by the observations?

And if you keep saying this, maybe eventually it will become true rather than being wishful thinking.

[Url]woodfortrees.org[/url]

This is what has been called a "well known denier website." Because it actually makes the data available to look at yourself.

Try taking a look at it. Does the data match the alarmist rhetoric? Nope. Does it match climate predictions? Nope. Does it support the deniers? Nope.

It doesn't matter what I say. What's the data show? You can, of course, continue to believe what you believe. But that is dogmatic, not scientific.

My wife is hotter than your wife.