Leak exposes how Heartland Institute works to undermine climate science

[bripat9643]

"The scheme includes spending $100,000 for spreading the message in K-12 schools that "the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain..."

OMFG!!!!!

$100,000

Not a typo!

One hundred thousand dollars!

Multiply that by 5000 and it almost equals one Solyndra!

 

[konradv]

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

Interesting... I had a hunch that this was being corporate-funded.

ROFL! and I had a hunch that all the warmist nutburger cult members are government funded.

Here's a clue for you: the source of the funding doesn't prove or disprove an argument or the evidence presented. The belief that it does is a classic libturd fallacy.

Funny how that doesn't matter when grants are the subject. Then we're told they're saying it for the money and hope, 1) that the reader doesn't realize that theories precede the money and 2) we know where it comes from with most of the money going to doing expts., while the deniers' cash is from largely unreported sources and goes straight into their pockets. After all, who needs to do expts., when stealing emails is so much more lucrative?

 

[skookerasbil]

Can you prove it? Logically, if something increases that absorbs energy, eventually that increase in retained energy will lead to increased temps. Your turn.

Geez.......does this dope ^^ have the political IQ of a handball, or what?

The whole point is the true believers CANT PROVE SHIT..........not the other way around, which is why as the recent Pew poll illustrates.........nobody cares about this shit.

Not talking politics, that's the deniers' milieu. I'm talking science, something you wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole, preferring polls and misinterpreting stolen emails.

"The science"...........laugh my ass off.............listen s0n, like it or not, the science doesnt mean shit in 2012. How COULD it mean shit? If we wake up one morning and the number one story on DRUDGE is "Alaska experienceing 40 degree's for 5 weeks in mid-winter!!".......THEN, people will give a shit. Otherwise.........nobody gives a shit about the science.

Until then, the bomb throwers will keep looking like agenda driven assholes by the public.

 

[bripat9643]

Why do liberals fight so hard for man made climate it change when it doesn't exist? It's called nature morons.

Can you prove it? Logically, if something increases that absorbs energy, eventually that increase in retained energy will lead to increased temps. Your turn.

If I spit in the ocean, sea level will rise. Obviously we have to make a law against that or our cities will soon be underwater.

That's the logic of your claim.

 

[konradv]

Geez.......does this dope ^^ have the political IQ of a handball, or what?

The whole point is the true believers CANT PROVE SHIT..........not the other way around, which is why as the recent Pew poll illustrates.........nobody cares about this shit.

Not talking politics, that's the deniers' milieu. I'm talking science, something you wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole, preferring polls and misinterpreting stolen emails.

"The science"...........laugh my ass off.............listen s0n, like it or not, the science doesnt mean shit in 2012. How COULD it mean shit? If we wake up one morning and the number one story on DRUDGE is "Alaska experienceing 40 degree's for 5 weeks in mid-winter!!".......THEN, people will give a shit. Otherwise.........nobody gives a shit about the science.

Just me and the other "nobodys", I guess.

 

[konradv]

Why do liberals fight so hard for man made climate it change when it doesn't exist? It's called nature morons.

Can you prove it? Logically, if something increases that absorbs energy, eventually that increase in retained energy will lead to increased temps. Your turn.

If I spit in the ocean, sea level will rise. Obviously we have to make a law against that or our cities will soon be underwater.

That's the logic of your claim.

That's a FAIL. That's not logic, that's an analogy and a pretty piss-poor one at that!!!

 

[bripat9643]

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

Interesting... I had a hunch that this was being corporate-funded.

ROFL! and I had a hunch that all the warmist nutburger cult members are government funded.

Here's a clue for you: the source of the funding doesn't prove or disprove an argument or the evidence presented. The belief that it does is a classic libturd fallacy.

Funny how that doesn't matter when grants are the subject. Then we're told they're saying it for the money and hope, 1) that the reader doesn't realize that theories precede the money and 2) we know where it comes from with most of the money going to doing expts., while the deniers' cash is from largely unreported sources and goes straight into their pockets. After all, who needs to do expts., when stealing emails is so much more lucrative?

It doesn't matter whether the money is anonymous or not. And what "experiments" are the warmist cult leaders performing? From what I've seen, all they are doing is massaging data until it supports their agenda.

 

[skookerasbil]

Not talking politics, that's the deniers' milieu. I'm talking science, something you wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole, preferring polls and misinterpreting stolen emails.

"The science"...........laugh my ass off.............listen s0n, like it or not, the science doesnt mean shit in 2012. How COULD it mean shit? If we wake up one morning and the number one story on DRUDGE is "Alaska experienceing 40 degree's for 5 weeks in mid-winter!!".......THEN, people will give a shit. Otherwise.........nobody gives a shit about the science.

Just me and the other "nobodys", I guess.

Thats exactly right s0n...........you finally get it. You and the other internet lefty OCD's represent the bottom of that Pew Research graph I posted above. 28% and under = politically irrelevant. Bomb throwers are popular only with other bomb throwers........and in 2012, exist only as a fringe element politically. Exactly why Cap and Trade got blown to shit and is now dead.

 

[bripat9643]

"The science"...........laugh my ass off.............listen s0n, like it or not, the science doesnt mean shit in 2012. How COULD it mean shit? If we wake up one morning and the number one story on DRUDGE is "Alaska experienceing 40 degree's for 5 weeks in mid-winter!!".......THEN, people will give a shit. Otherwise.........nobody gives a shit about the science.

Just me and the other "nobodys", I guess.

You're in a rapidly shrinking minority. You're being laughed off the planet.

 

[konradv]

Since when do polls trump science?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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

Interesting... I had a hunch that this was being corporate-funded.

"climate science" is an oxymoron.... kinda like "Obama works" and "liberal intelligentsia".

Have a great day!

 

[skookerasbil]

Bripat bro...........time to move on. This meathead is pwning himself at this point.

There is not help for the perpetually stupid.

 

[bripat9643]

Since when do polls trump science?

They don't. that's why the favorite argument of the warmist (consensus) is a colossal fail.

 

[Dragon]

Didn't even read the article but at best it would mean you can't believe anybody on either side of the climate change argument. So now what?

Rely in peer-reviewed sources only. That's what I do.

 

[tinydancer]

Nothing tops the BBC's promotion of global warming. Nothing. You wanna talk corporate sponsorship, I'll show you corporate sponsorship.

BBC sought advice from global warming scientists on economy, drama, music... and even game shows

By David Rose

Last updated at 12:29 AM on 27th November 2011


Britain’s leading green activist research centre spent £15,000 on seminars for top BBC executives in an apparent bid to block climate change sceptics from the airwaves, a vast new cache of leaked ‘Climategate’ emails has revealed.

The emails – part of a trove of more than 5,200 messages that appear to have been stolen from computers at the University of East Anglia – shed light for the first time on an incestuous web of interlocking relationships between BBC journalists and the university’s scientists, which goes back more than a decade.

They show that University staff vetted BBC scripts, used their contacts at the Corporation to stop sceptics being interviewed and were consulted about how the broadcaster should alter its programme output.

Like the first ‘Climategate’ leaks two years ago, they were placed last week on a Russian server by an anonymous source.

Again like their predecessors, they have emerged just before a United Nations climate summit, which is to start this week in Durban.


BBC insiders say the close links between the Corporation and the UEA’s two climate science departments, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Research, have had a significant impact on its coverage.

‘Following their lead has meant the whole thrust and tone of BBC reporting has been that the science is settled, and that there is no need for debate,’ one journalist said. ‘If you disagree, you’re branded a loony.’

In 2007, the BBC issued a formal editorial policy document, stating that ‘the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus’ – the view that the world faces catastrophe because of man-made carbon dioxide emissions.

The document says the policy was decided after ‘a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts’ – including those from UEA.

The ‘Climategate 2’ emails disclose that in private some of those same scientists have had doubts about aspects of the global warming case.

For example, Professor Phil Jones, the head of the CRU, admitted there was no evidence that the snows of Kilimanjaro were melting because of climate change, and he and his colleagues agreed there were serious problems with the famous ‘hockey stick’ graph – the depiction of global temperatures that suggests they were broadly level for 1,000 years until they started to rise with industrialisation.

But although there is now more scientific debate than ever about influences on climate other than CO2, prompted by the fact that the world has not warmed for 15 years, a report from the BBC Trust this year compared climate change sceptics to the conspiracy theorists who blame America for 9/11, and said Britain’s main sceptic think-tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, should be given no air time.

The man at the centre of the BBC-UEA web is Roger Harrabin, the Corporation’s ‘environment analyst’, who reports for a range of programmes on radio and TV.

Last week The Mail on Sunday revealed that in 1996, he and his friend, Professor Joe Smith of the Open University, set up an informal two-man band to organise environment seminars for BBC executives.





More disgusting evidence at link:

BBC sought advice from global warming scientists on economy, drama, music... and even game shows | Mail Online

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"The scheme includes spending $100,000 for spreading the message in K-12 schools that "the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain..."

OMFG!!!!!

$100,000

Not a typo!

One hundred thousand dollars!

That's your defense, "just a little bit of propaganda"?!?!

Why is there never any science in Climate science?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"The scheme includes spending $100,000 for spreading the message in K-12 schools that "the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain..."

OMFG!!!!!

$100,000

Not a typo!

One hundred thousand dollars!

Was it tax payers money?

No! Private money! The root of all evil! It should be government money because only government knows what right and best

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Didn't even read the article but at best it would mean you can't believe anybody on either side of the climate change argument. So now what?

Rely in peer-reviewed sources only. That's what I do.

Peer review is what you have when the laboratory refuses to cooperate and validate your theory

 

[bripat9643]

Why do liberals fight so hard for man made climate it change when it doesn't exist? It's called nature morons.

For a while it looked like the magic carpet rid to bring on global socialism, but the god has failed. The truth has come out.

 

[Neotrotsky]

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

Interesting... I had a hunch that this was being corporate-funded.

Too bad it was fake



Peter Gleick, really now
why anyone should trust Gleick’s scientific judgment if his judgment about how to deal with climate skeptics is so bad?