Global Warming Debate

[jackdale]

Looky here.

The news story:

Leak exposes how Heartland Institute works to undermine climate science | Environment | guardian.co.uk

The documents:

Brendan DeMelle | Heartland Institute Exposed: Internal Documents Unmask Heart of Climate Denial Machine

[jackdale]

From The Register

Gifted amateurs and interested activists the world over are poring over documents published on the Desmog blog and elsewhere, which appear to detail the US think-tank the Heartland Institute’s budget and anti-climate-change strategy.

A list of the documents can be found on Skeptical Science, here (I am referring to this list rather than others now available because some sites, such as ThinkProgress, appear to be suffering occasional DoS-by-popularity).


If, as they are described, these are genuine Heartland internal documents, the leak is at least as good as the “climategate” e-mails.

The 2012 action plan by the institute includes curriculum development designed, as the documents put it, to “show that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain – two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.”

The Heartland memo says the materials are to be developed by a DoE consultant, Dr David Wojick. An anonymous donor has, the document says, pledged $US100,000 to have 12 course modules developed.

The institute expects to raise $US7 million this year, to put into its various campaigns.

The leaked document also, apparently, reveal Heartland Institute funding to “key individuals” for countering the “alarmist AGW message”, identifying Craig Isdo (the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change), the University of Virginia’s Fred Singer, and Australian Robert Carter as receiving Heartland funding.

Climate skeptic blogger Anthony Watts, it appears, received $US90,000 to relaunch his Website. The Desmog blog entry is here.

With nine documents to work through, The Register would expect this story has a few days to run yet.

Heartland Institute documents leaked ? The Register

[cupper3]

AGW debate summed up:

• In the 1970's and early 1980's, indications of a new ice age
  
  
• Later on, indications of abnormalities in ice cover shrinking in numerous areas on earth
  
  
• Scientists engage to see if there is a common factor
  
  
• CO2 emerges as the likely suspect
  
  
• A plethora of research is done, CO2 appears to be confirmed, and activists, many of the usual suspects, jump on the band waggon
  
  
• Largely because the usual suspects are saying AGW needs to be stopped, mitigated, reversed, the other usual suspects who can't stand the first usual suspects due to previously exaggerated claims or stunts, believe that the first usual suspects are exaggerating once again
  
  
• Second set of usual suspects decide to fight fire with fire, and get own set of studies to refute first set of studies
  
  
• The whole debate gets into my science is better then your science, ignoring what started the whole thing, a concern that there is AGW.
  
  
• So now we have.... nomenclature change! AGW is euphemistically labelled “climate change”. You know, the stuff that has been happening for millions of years?

The real facts are;

• Climate has and will change, always did, always will
  
  
• Human caused CO2 emissions likely do affect the speed at which climate will change towards the warm end, although there are some significant holes in the science.
  
  
• Given the preponderance of the evidence, would it not be best to take the precautionary principle, and mitigate CO2 emissions?
  
  
• Probably the fastest way to have many support this is tell the first set of usual environmental “activists” to STFU. They don't realize it, but they are getting in the way of others supporting emission changes.
  
  
• Oh, and quit putting schemes like Kyoto together. Cloaking wealth transfer in the name of the environment is the worst way to impact it in a positive way. Those type of stunts just side track the issue.

When proponents of either side get entrenched, little happens.

Let's use commonsense and practical solutions to work together.

Naaa... ain't gonna happen. To many special interests on both sides.

[jackdale]

My favourite quote

Development of our "Global Warming Curriculum for K-12 Classrooms" project.
Principals and teachers are heavily biased toward the alarmist perspective. To counter this we are
considering launching an effort to develop alternative materials for K-12 classrooms. We are
pursuing a proposal from Dr. David Wojick to produce a global warming curriculum for K-12
schools. Dr. Wojick is a consultant with the Office of Scientific and Technical Information at the
U.S. Department of Energy in the area of information and communication science. His effort will
focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and
uncertain - two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science. We
tentatively plan to pay Dr. Wojick $100,000 for 20 modules in 2012, with funding pledged by
the Anonymous Donor.

January 2012
Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy

http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta...20Strategy.pdf

Who needs science anyways?

[BentSailor]

Always wondered why Watts came back after having his pet theory thrashed. It should be interesting to see how those claiming "AGW proponents are just looking for more grant money" respond to this information.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by BentSailor

Always wondered why Watts came back after having his pet theory thrashed. It should be interesting to see how those claiming "AGW proponents are just looking for more grant money" respond to this information.

And that well respected scientist and cigarette salesman, Fred Singer, gets $5,000 a month plus expenses.

I came across this report, but have not a chance to read the whole thing.

http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta...files/fake.pdf

Executive Summary
Science is built through credible peer-reviewed journals, but
anti-science or advocacy science uses OpEds, blogs,
newsletters and personal attacks on scientists. It is fake
advocacy science designed to confuse non-scientists, often for
financial and/or ideological reasons. Modern anti-science was
created by the tobacco industry in the 1950s and then used against climate
science, often by the same well-experienced think tanks and individuals.
- Fake science¡¨ reports have long been used by tobacco companies and
others who privatize profits and socialize large losses or risks
- Independent experts¡¨ write fake science reports that would quickly be
rejected by real science journals, but confuse the target audience.
-Fakexperts¡¨ such as Michael Crichton are relentlessly quoted and
promoted as though scientifically credible.
- Fake education and disinformation is distributed via well-organized PR
channels, newsletters, blogs, often to legislators.

Some think tanks clearly focus on PR and lobbying, not research or
education, but still claim to be tax-exempt 501(c)(3) public charities. Some
patterns and practices of odd money flows emerge only by comparing
sets of charities' public IRS Form 990s with external context.
S. Fred Singer is President of the Science and Environmental Policy
Project (SEPP), but has done almost all the work himself for 20 years.
A trek through his and other 990s unearthed many curiosities.
Singer claimed Frederick Seitz as Chairman for two years after his demise
and 20 years after a Philip Morris staffer had written in 1989:
"Dr. Seitz is quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice."

SEPP's finances were curious. SEPP paid no salaries, even for Singer's
60-hour workweeks. Money flowed oddly. Asset trades often exceeded
normal income and they accumulated to $1.5M, tax-free.
Heartland Institute's Joseph Bast staunchly defended Joe Camel, the
infamous campaign to addict younger children. Heartland got tobacco
funding for many years, along with a Philip Morris Board member.
Whitney Ball's DONORS TRUST funded a major expansion of Heartland
climate anti-science. Singer collected old associates to help write
NonGovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)
reports, filled with unsupported claims and long-refuted anti-science.
He was helped by Craig Idso, of the Center for the Study of Carbon
Dioxide and Global Change (CDCDGC), whose money flows also seem
unusual. Robert Ferguson's Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) was
a website and a PO Box in a UPS store and he was actually a CSCDGC
employee.
Under Jay Lehr and James Taylor, anti-science permeated Heartland's
Environment and Climate News (E&CN) sent mostly to elected officials.
Heartland incessantly touted its access and influence with such officials,
but its tax forms claimed no lobbying. It ran fake science conferences,
paying for government staff attendance. It sent money to foreign noncharity
advocacy groups, sent anti-science handbooks to school boards and
urged parents to complain. It has been criticized in Nature and Science.

Free speech allows people to express opinions, even lie about facts, but
tax-free operation is a revocable privilege. Spreading factual untruths
and confusion about smoking or climate science is neither research nor
education in the public interest I allege that:
- SEPP, Heartland, CSCDGC and others are really advocacy groups
that have repeatedly abused the rules of tax-free public-charity status,
- that funders have paid for advocacy beyond that allowed, that there is
already much evidence for status revocations,
- that the IRS could unearth much more financial fakery.

The next page summarizes flows of money and the memes (advocacy) that
it buys. It is a murky money maze filled with fake science, fakexperts,
funny finances, all free of tax.

[Brent Swain]

The rate of change is undeniably, extreme, and far above normal climate change drift. The one new factor is human activity; burning of huge amounts of fossil fuels.
Sure, we can ignore it, but the results are extremely brutal.
Over population is the main cause. If we had a fraction the population, we could do whatever we wanted, and have little effect on climate. The bigger the population, the less wiggle room we have.

[jackdale]

Brent

How do you propose to going about getting folks to have fewer children? In an subsistence economy children are an economic asset; they provide extra hands and provide the well being of parents in their old age. When there are large infant mortality rates, it makes sense to have lots of children. There is huge lag in getting from 2.11 children (replacement levels) to zero population growth.

The countries with small or declining natural population growth rates are those countries emitting the most toxins into the ecology.

[Brent Swain]

Education is the most effective birth control mechanism yet devised, and the fairest.
It's the resulting affluence of countries with a small birth rate which has enabled them to live the consumerism (squanderism ) lifestyle, which increases their CO2 output.
If their education system countered the tendency for them to get their values from, and admire those with the common, severe mental illness called "Obsessive Greed, "education could be a solution.

[cupper3]

There are a number of issues with the Heartland documents.

First of all, if real, they were STOLEN.

Anyone want to condone that? I really mean that, is it kosher?

Secondly, it appears, and yes, I take it with a grain of salt, that there were some fake and altered information in the STOLEN documents.

See Heartland's press release

We all talk about privacy issues and internet security and identity theft, but why is it so easy to gloat when someone we may not agree with is the victim of those actions?

Would you gloat as much if your private issues were released?

Would you? Or would you scream crooks, thieves, and how dare they?

Please don't sidetrack by saying the IPCC documents were stolen, some thing applies.

Just wondering about the ethics.