I can’t stand the commercials where the kids start ticking like time bombs. It seems like the global warming crowd will stop at nothing in their quest to scare us.
That's a lot of manure. I'm sure it will grow many "News" stories in the Spring & Summer as the temperature rises.
Unless there are free strippers, drinks and caviar, I am betting the journalists don't show up.
It's both. Some of the CO2 increase is natural, some is man-made. But the total increase doesn't lead to much warming without positive feedback from water vapor which is where the models don't model well. Also the solar cosmic effects on clouds are not factored into the models, but are very real and measurable.
Global warming un-masked!
Global warming un-masked! (ping)
SHOCKED, I tell you. I am SHOCKED that this conference sponsored by the Heartland institute would include people that had ALREADY expressed skepticism about climate change like this! Doesn't the Heartland Institute, who is actually PAYING these participants to come to the meeting (and to stay in one of New York's finest hotels to boot!), know that there is a scientific consensus on this issue? I think it is APPALLING that such a noteworthy organization as the Heartland Institute would actually INVITE and PAY these scientists to express their views PUBLICALLY, in a conference attended by other like-minded SCIENTISTS.
I'll be shaking my head all day about this.
This is what a group of British climate scientists wrote about "The Great Global Warming Swindle" mockumentary:
"“This programme misrepresented the state of scientific knowledge on global warming, claiming climate scientists are presenting lies. This is an outrageous statement... “We defend the right of people to be sceptical, but for C4 to imply that the thousands of scientists and published peer-reviewed papers, summarised in the recent international science assessment, are misguided or lying lacks scientific credibility and simply beggars belief.” (Alan Thorpe, Natural Environment Research Council, Brian Hoskins, University of Reading, Jo Haigh, Imperial College London, Myles Allen, University of Oxford, Peter Cox, University of Exeter, Colin Prentice, QUEST Programme, letter to the Observer, Sunday March 11, 2007).
I disagree with my idol Dr. Sowell on this particular point.
ExxonMobil Deliberately Misled Blogosphere About Funding Global Warming Denialists
Now, unexpected cold snaps as well as heat waves can be blamed on Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions.
|
Sowell his the target dead center.
The Exxonsecrets link made a big deal about a nefarious Exxon connection with the Heartland Institute, stating...
Walter F. Buchholtz, an ExxonMobil executive, serves as Heartland's Government Relations Advisor, according to Heartland's 2005 IRS Form 990, pg. 15.
Read the tax return referenced and scroll down to page 15. You will find Buchholtz listed as an UNPAID advisor. Wow. Big smoking gun.
Want an even bigger smoking gun? He’s no longer even serving as an unpaid advisor. He’s not mentioned in the 2006 Form 990. Case closed. This is not only an ad hominem attack, but one that’s three years out of date at that. But let’s continue for the sake of argument.
Buchholtz was an unpaid advisor to a non-profit. And he works for an oil company. So what? Did that taint him? This individual is one of the most honored people in his field. He works for one of America’s great companies. Attacking his character simply because he disagrees with you is scurrilous, low, and an indication that you can’t win the debate on ideas and facts.
Here’s a news flash. Oil is not bad; it drives industry. Capitalism is not bad; it creates wealth and prosperity. Freedom of speech applies to everyone, even those who disagree with you. If the shareholders put up with it, Exxon has the same right as George Soros to promote a point of view.
What I don’t understand is why the greenies are so afraid of Heartland, unless it’s the general fear to test their hypotheses in a competitive arena (e.g., Gore’s fear of debate – though I’ve got to admit, it shows more rationality one would expect from a purported zealot). The fear cannot be centered on Heartland’s financial resources. According to the 990, Heartland doesn’t appear to have a lot monetary influence to peddle. The president of the organization’s salary was only $81K. The organization only raised $4.5 million and spent $2.4 million, banking the rest and spending it the following year. The money Heartland spent in 2005 was mostly for staff salaries (none of them appear all that well paid), publications, travel, seminars, etc. Only $93K went to the speaker’s bureau. For comparison purposes, that’s about the same amount of money that Al Gore gets in a month from Current, his failing media venture that nevertheless plans on an IPO.
If you want to talk about money, let’s talk. Very little money flows in the direction of the skeptics. The Feds spend billions on global warming each year. You’re worried about Heartland spending $93K or offering $1K individual honorariums?
James Hansen, the Goddard Institute of Space Studies director who always seems to be mouthing off about how he’s being censored (the only time he does seem to shut up is when Steve McIntyre catches Hansen screwing up the data), got $720K from George Soros and $250K from the Heinz Family Foundation, which is run by Teresa Heinz Kerry. After receiving the grant, Hansen publicly endorses Kerry for president. Remember, this guy is an employee of the taxpayers. If you worry about a lousy $1K honorarium from Heartland, I hope you’re screaming while doing cartwheels about Hansen.
Heartland only gets 5% of its funds from any one source, which means the most Exxon can contribute is a couple of hundred thousand dollars. By contrast, Exxon gave Stanford $100 million to study climate change. Does this tarnish Stanford? You linked to Exxonsecrets, a Greenpeace website. To be fair, let’s compare Greenpeace’s 2005 Form 990 with Heartland’s. It turns out that Greenpeace got $16 million and spent $13 million. Greenpeace’s top guy only worked 30 hours a week and got $115K plus $7K in a retirement fund. This doesn’t compare well with half million dollar salary that the president of the American Red Cross receives, but it’s still not bad for a part time job.
If you want to play the ad hominem guilt by association game, let’s play. The top Greenpeace guy was formerly the executive director of the Florence and John Schumann Foundation, which funds a plethora of leftist causes. What’s funny is how much oil and gas is in the foundation’s investment portfolio. Does this taint the Schumann Foundation, it’s former executive director, Greenpeace, the Exxonsecrets website, and the entire global warming support network?
The chairman of the board of Greenpeace owns a PR firm that’s done work for the dreaded DuPont. Does this taint Greenpeace? If you say no, then don’t try to claim the volunteer work of an Exxon employee taints Heartland.
Well, it depends on your definition of "paying your own way". Most meetings charge a registration fee to attend; rarely does a meeting pay you to attend.
Come on, there’s a big difference between attending a meeting and presenting a paper and speaking. Speakers are often paid. I know because I get paid to speak (and it's a lot more than $1,000 plus expenses). Speakers who are really good get a lot more. Speakers who are famous get still more, whether they’re good or not.
Honorariums are pretty darn common. I used to get one as a college student for serving on an athletic conference sportsmanship committee. The honorarium was tiny, but seemed big to me at the time.
For the last ten years, I’ve been involved with an industry conference where small business owners get a small $500 honorarium, plus travel. As a member of the conference’s advisory board, I speak for free every year and pay my own way (at least I get into the conference for free).
If you want to go to your rock conference and get paid, get published. Maybe someone will pay you because others want to hear what you have to say. Just don’t expect to get paid to listen. That privilege is reserved for congress.
This is what a group of British climate scientists wrote about "The Great Global Warming Swindle" mockumentary
Oh, give me a break. Do you want to open this up and compare Durkin’s documentary with Gore’s on the basis of scientific facts and accuracy? Greenie attacks on Swindle are addressed here.
If I seem over the top on this, it’s because we’re about to fundamentally reorder society around the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind. It’s surreal. It’s like Orson Wells’ broadcast of War of the Worlds lasted long enough to restructure society and mobilize for the Martian invasion.
Think about some of the absolutely looney things that have happened lately...
We’ve just banned the incandescent light bulb.
We’re turning the world’s best, most reliable power grid into an unreliable third world system.
California bureaucrats want to control consumer thermostat settings by remote control, no matter what the consumer wants.
Worse, the Californicrats want buildings to generate as much energy as they use.
This stuff is really happening. It’s command and control environmentalism. If you aren’t frightened by it, you should be.
Actually, there is. It seems that the quality control on ground-based measurements is appallingly poor. Many of the ground-based measurements are located too close to parking lots, air-conditioning exhaust, etc. The resulting error in temperature measurement trends (>2 C) overwhelms the very small temperature changes that climatologists are claiming are due to man-made CO2.
The ground-based temperature measurement trends do not agree with satellite-based measurement trends. It seems that these ground-based measurements are really more of a measure of urban expansion than long-term temperature changes.
Why doesn’t Thomas sowell run for President?
How about we make an effort to get him as VP?
He would certainly attract more votes than any of the people McLame is now considering (including the conservative base he desperately needs)
I worry about McLame making it through his first term too- he is growing old fast.