Climate Scientists are Mass Murderers!!!One1

[Ludovic]

@LonesomePolecat

Meh. They’re no sillier than PETA’s billboards equating meat-eating with the Holocaust.

And this makes it meh-worthy…how?

[Musicat]

Hah! Poe’s Law strikes again.

[LonesomePolecat]

@Ludovic

And this makes it meh-worthy…how?

(shrug) Just more political foolishness, that’s all. Not terribly different from the climate change hysteria we get from the likes of GIGO Buster.

[Rhythmdvl]

Facts are hysterical now? :rolleyes:

[Rune]

And just off the press!!!11 Climate Change Denial is the new Racism!. Bonus inside: Bat-Shit Crazy Liberal Professor Idol Poster.

[GIGObuster]

@LonesomePolecat

(shrug) Just more political foolishness, that’s all. Not terribly different from the climate change hysteria we get from the likes of GIGO Buster.

Yeah, hysterical like the conservative republican Mormon scientist at BYU Barry Bickmore?

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/13/150577766/war-of-the-worlds-when-science-politics-collide

That’s what Brigham Young University geochemist Barry Bickmore found in 2010 when he tried to derail Utah legislation calling man-made climate change a hoax. Among other things, the resolution cited the “climategate” scandal in which stolen emails purportedly showed that climate scientists had manipulated data. The scientists were later cleared by an investigative panel.

Bickmore wrote letters and telephoned lawmakers to kill the bill, but it passed anyway. “They absolutely did not want to hear,” he says. "It was all Republicans driving this — every single Republican in the Legislature voted for the thing.

“It wasn’t like they were responding to convincing arguments,” he adds. “They were just listening to people who were telling them what they wanted to hear, and substituting their authority for the majority of experts.”

Bickmore — who is himself a conservative Republican — sees the issue of climate change as a disaster for Republicans who he thinks will ultimately be blamed as the evidence becomes incontrovertible and the damage appears irreversible.

Still, he’s in no hurry to change his politics.

“I think Republicans need to hear this from someone in their own tribe,” he says.

Just apply this thought experiment to your puny brain if you dare:

When more than a super-majority of the scientists and experts are telling you something, why it is that you think that all of those scientists and experts are using politics and not science? In other words, it is really stupid to think that all of them are in a conspiracy.

[GIGObuster]

@Rune

And just off the press!!!11 Climate Change Denial is the new Racism!. Bonus inside: Bat-Shit Crazy Liberal Professor Idol Poster.

March 31, and the Daily Fail. Late and wrong as usual. I would not trust their out of context quotes at all.

[Anne_Neville]

Know who was a big fan of using scientists’ political opinions to judge the validity of their theories? Joseph Stalin.

[Kimstu]

@LonesomePolecat

Meh. They’re no sillier than PETA’s billboards equating meat-eating with the Holocaust.

:dubious: For an organization aspiring to be regarded as a politically serious think tank, running an ad campaign about a policy issue that is merely “no sillier than” a PETA billboard is setting the bar kind of low, don’t you think?

Everybody already knows that PETA is an ideological extremist “press slut” organization whose only effective mission is to call attention to themselves with deliberately provocative media stunts.

And now, thanks to this ridiculous “climate science madmen” campaign, everybody knows that the Heartland Institute is one too.

[GIGObuster]

@Anne_Neville

Know who was a big fan of using scientists’ political opinions to judge the validity of their theories? Joseph Stalin.

Yep, as scientist Richard Alley could tell you, politicians (that for some funny coincidence in this case are virtually all Republicans in the pockets of big industry) are the ones that are embracing the idea that they can dictate to scientists what to say.

BTW, Richard Alley is also a Republican.

Geologist Richard Alley’s ‘Operators Manual’ TV Documentary and Book… A Feast...

[GIGObuster]

@Kimstu

:dubious: For an organization aspiring to be regarded as a politically serious think tank, running an ad campaign about a policy issue that is merely “no sillier than” a PETA billboard is setting the bar kind of low, don’t you think?

Everybody already knows that PETA is an ideological extremist “press slut” organization whose only effective mission is to call attention to themselves with deliberately provocative media stunts.

And now, thanks to this ridiculous “climate science madmen” campaign, everybody knows that the Heartland Institute is one too.

Related to this, it is interesting to notice that Anthony Watts and his denier *Watts Up With That *site has come against Heartland for this stunt, sorry to say most of his contributors do not agree with that contrarian opinion to the contrarians :), and we should not forget that talk is indeed cheap: based on the latest reports, Mr. Watts still accepts money from the Heartland Institute to continue in his attempts to seed FUD against science.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@LonesomePolecat

Meh. They’re no sillier than PETA’s billboards equating meat-eating with the Holocaust. In any case, the billboard ads have been pulled.

They’re not any sillier, but I already knew PETA was crazy. I’d never heard of the “Heartland Institute”. I would have assumed it was a seminary in Kansas or something.

[BrainGlutton]

@BrainGlutton

OTOH, there are some corporations who have a bottom-line reason to support the Heartland Institute or something like it, no matter how unpopular it gets, because any action taken to stop global warming would hurt their bottom lines even worse.

And they support it a lot – so far as we can tell, through the veil of Heartland’s policy of funding-secrecy. From SourceWatch:

The Heartland Institute, according to the Institute’s web site, is a nonprofit “think tank” that questions the reality and import of climate change, second-hand smoke health hazards, and a host of other issues that might seem to require government regulation. A July 2011 Nature editorial points out the group’s lack of credibility:

“Despite criticizing climate scientists for being overconfident about their data, models and theories, the Heartland Institute proclaims a conspicuous confidence in single studies and grand interpretations…makes many bold assertions that are often questionable or misleading… Many climate sceptics seem to review scientific data and studies not as scientists but as attorneys, magnifying doubts and treating incomplete explanations as falsehoods rather than signs of progress towards the truth. … The Heartland Institute and its ilk are not trying to build a theory of anything. They have set the bar much lower, and are happy muddying the waters.”[1]

<snip>

Funding

Foundation funders

Media Transparency lists Heartland as having received grants from a range of foundations between 1986 and 2009. Of these foundations, by far the largest donor has been the foundation of Chicago industrialist Barre Seid[41], maker of Tripp Lite surge protectors.
Barbara and Barre Seid Foundation $1,037,977
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation $648,000
Exxon Mobil $531,500
Walton Family Foundation $400,000
Sarah Scaife Foundation $325,000
Charlotte and Walter Kohler Charitable Trust $190,500
Jaquelin Hume Foundation $166,000
Rodney Fund $135,000
JM Foundation $82,000
Castle Rock Foundation $70,000
Roe Foundation $41,500
John M. Olin Foundation $40,000
Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation $40,000
Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation $37,578
Armstrong Foundation $30,000
Hickory Foundation $13,000
Carthage Foundation $10,000

Exxon funding

Greenpeace’s ExxonSecrets website lists Heartland as having received $676,500 (unadjusted for inflation) from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2006.[42] (As mentioned above, Heartland insist that Exxon has not contributed to the group since 2006.)[43]

Exxon contributions include:
$30,000 in 1998;
$115,000 in 2000;
$90,000 in 2001;
$15,000 in 2002;
$85,000 for General Operating Support and $7,500 for their 19th Anniversary Benefit Dinner in 2003;
$85,000 for General Operating Support and $15,000 for Climate Change Efforts in 2004; and
$119,000 in 2005; and
$115,000 in 2006.

Secrecy on funding sources

While Heartland once disclosed its major supporters, it now refuses to publicly disclose who its corporate and foundation funders are. In response to an article criticizing the think tank for its secrecy, the group’s President, Joseph Bast, wrote in February 2005:
“For many years, we provided a complete list of Heartland’s corporate and foundation donors on this Web site and challenged other think tanks and advocacy groups to do the same. To our knowledge, not a single group followed our lead. However, 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. Even reporters from time to time seemed to think reporting the identities of one or two donors–out of a list of hundreds–was a fair way of representing our funding or our motivation in taking the positions expressed in our publications. After much deliberation and with some regret, we now keep confidential the identities of all our donors.”[44]
It has also claimed that “by not disclosing our donors, we keep the focus on the issue.”[43]

**Funding base

Diverse funding base, reports Heartland**

According to Heartland,[6]
“The following facts show that Heartland is not a “front group”: … Diverse funding base: Heartland has grown slowly over the years by cultivating a diverse base of donors who share its mission. Today it has approximately 2,000 supporters. In 2010 it received 48 percent of its income from foundations, 34 percent from corporations, and 14 percent from individuals. No corporate donor gave more than 5 percent of its annual budget.”
Additional detail; funding source breakdown

Heartland stated that “in 2007 it received 71 percent of its income from foundations, 16 percent from corporations, and 11 percent from individuals. No corporate donor gave more than 5 percent of its annual budget … ExxonMobil has not contributed to Heartland since 2006. Indeed, gifts from all energy companies - coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear - combined did not exceed 5 percent of Heartland’s budget in 2007.”[43] (Heartland states that its 2007 revenue was approximately $5.2 million.[43] Based on this Heartland statement, in 2007 foundations provided approximately $3.69 million, corporations contributed $832,000 and approximately 1,600 individuals[45] Energy companies – “coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear” – contributed approximately 5% or around $260,000.)
Unbalanced; 35% to 58% of support from just one donor

A single donor provided 35% of Heartland’s revenue in 2009 and 58% in 2008[46], and 38% in 2007.[47]

Donations of software, source TBD

Heartland’s 2009 Form 990 reports over $120,000 in donations of software, apparently from a single source.[48]

Corporate sponsorship options, and perks

In its 2008 annual report to supporters, Heartland outlines that corporate sponsorships start out at $10,000, with the next rung up being “silver” sponsors which contribute $25,000, “gold” sponsors donating $50,000 and “platinum” sponsors kicking in $100,000.[13]

Independent, or a lobby shop?

Heartland’s 1999 letter said benefits of Platinum and Gold sponsorship included “special consideration of documents for promotion via PolicyFax”, and “attention to issues of special concern in Intellectual Ammunition and other publications”(page 8+) - which, given Heartland’s announced primary audience of legislators, would seem to amount to lobbying.

1999 funders internal data

A June 1999 Heartland document (page 8+) in the Tobacco Archives lists Heartland’s then-recent corporate, foundation and individual donors, and, for the highest spenders, roughly how much they gave.

Among the Platinum Sponsors were the D & D Foundation, Philip Morris, Procter & Gamble, and the Barre Seid Foundation. Gold sponsors included the American Petroleum Institute and the Bradley Foundation.

[Anne_Neville]

I strongly suspect that Ted Kaczynski, Fidel Castro, and Charles Manson also believe that 2 + 2 = 4, and that if you drop something, it will fall (and I’d bet Osama bin Laden, Hitler, and Stalin did believe those things). Does that mean if I drop the pencil I’m holding, it won’t fall?

(checks)

Nope.

What’s the Heartland Institute’s position on 2 + 2 equaling 4, and whether things will fall if you drop them? You can use the exact same logic they are using to discredit climate change research to discredit those things.

[GIGObuster]

Among the Platinum Sponsors were the D & D Foundation, Philip Morris, Procter & Gamble, and the Barre Seid Foundation. Gold sponsors included the American Petroleum Institute and the Bradley Foundation.

Joe Camel, Heartland Institute client:

I still don’t believe in global warming, do you?

http://climatecrocks.com/2012/05/04/heartland-institute-poster-fail/

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Anne_Neville

I strongly suspect that Ted Kaczynski, Fidel Castro, and Charles Manson also believe that 2 + 2 = 4, and that if you drop something, it will fall (and I’d bet Osama bin Laden, Hitler, and Stalin did believe those things). Does that mean if I drop the pencil I’m holding, it won’t fall?

(checks)

Nope.

What’s the Heartland Institute’s position on 2 + 2 equaling 4, and whether things will fall if you drop them? You can use the exact same logic they are using to discredit climate change research to discredit those things.

I think you’re missing a big part of the point they were shooting for (and failed, spectacularly, to convey): their position is that folks aren’t being swayed by evidence that can be checked as you suggest, but instead get swayed upon merely hearing that so-and-so says it’s true. They wanted to say “look, a lot of people who are nuts say it’s true” precisely in hopes of prompting a response like “I don’t care who says it; that doesn’t matter; what matters is whether it’s true.”

“This billboard was deliberately provocative, an attempt to turn the tables on the climate alarmists by using their own tactics but with the opposite message”, they say, at http://climateconference.heartland.org/our-billboards/, before arguing that

[QUOTE=Heartland]
Most people who still believe in global warming do so because they trust the United Nations, the so-called mainstream media, and leading political figures to be telling them the truth about a complicated scientific issue.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Heartland]
Why should I believe The Heartland Institute? We don’t think you should “believe” anyone. Do your own research. Come to your own conclusions.
[/QUOTE]

[Euphonious_Polemic]

Originally Posted by Heartland
Why should I believe The Heartland Institute? We don’t think you should “believe” anyone. Do your own research. Come to your own conclusions.

Riiiiight. Sowing doubt. It’s what they do best. This is the exact tactic they used when trying to downplay the fact that smoking causes cancer.

I guess we should not believe anything that scientists tell us unless we conduct all of the experiments personally ourselves:

Speed of light? Don’t believe it until you do your own experiments. Why not start off with replicating the Michelson–Morley experiment in your garage?

Heliocentric universe? Not on your life buddy! Not until you duplicate all of Kepler’s measurements, and mathematically prove it yourself.

Germ Theory of Disease? Pshaw. It’s only a “theory”, right? Don’t believe Francesco Redi, Robert Hooke or Louis Pasteur until you duplicate their work. And Pasteur was French for God’s sake! You know what they’re like!

I’ve never seen a germ in my life. I’m looking right now, and I can’t see them. Invisible germs indeed!
In the meantime, since Germs are only a theory, feel free to play with any smallpox or ebola you happen to come across. It’s probably good for you, and the scientists are just conspiring to keep that good stuff all to themselves.

[Ludovic]

@Euphonious_Polemic

I’ve never seen a germ in my life. I’m looking right now, and I can’t see them. Invisible germs indeed!

And what about tides? You can’t explain that! And rainbows! HTFDTW?

[GIGObuster]

Of course one of the “luminaries”, Lord Monkton, that Heartland has invited before to their denial paloozas also has the mantra of “Do your own research. Come to your own conclusions.”

It is the equivalent of urban legend spammers that also type that “it is true! Snopes also says so!”

Of course, they expect many (and unfortunately many do not bother to check) to not look at the sources and find for themselves that the deniers are full of hooey.

Monckton bunkum Part 5 -- What, MORE errors, my lord?

[Pashnish_Ewing]

The “so-called” mainstream media? Are they saying that people say it’s mainstream but it’s really not? And if it’s really not, why does it matter that they deny climate change? I guess Heartland would say because it’s were the majority of people get their news. But, then…ugh. I’d carry this out further but I fear it would break my brain.