Stupidity knows no rank: "Climate change is a threat to our national security."

[Old Rocks]

Geez, just another dingbat right wing site, primarily funded by you-know-how. So far you are batting zero, Henry.

Heartland Institute - SourceWatch

The Heartland Institute, according to the Institute's web site, is a nonprofit organization whose mission is "to discover and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems".[1] The Institute campaigns in support of:

"Common-sense environmentalism", such as opposition to the the Kyoto Protocol aimed at countering global warming
Genetically engineered crops and products;
The privatization of public services;
The introduction of school vouchers;
The deregulation of health care insurance;
and against:

What it refers to as "junk science";
Tobacco control measures such as tobacco tax increases (the Institute denies the health effects of second-hand smoke);
The institute was founded in 1984 by David H. Padden, now the President of Padco Lease Corporation and Joseph L. Bast, Heartland's President and CEO.[2] In 2007 it spent over $5.8 million on its activities.[3]

The Institute sees its primary audience as "the nation’s 8,300 state and national elected officials and approximately 8,400 local government officials."[4] For five of the Insitute's priority policy areas, Heartland produces 20-page tabloid-sized monthly newspapers which are primarily distributed to elected officials, journalists and donors. (The five publications are Budget & Tax News, Environment & Climate News, Health Care News, Infotech & Telecom News and School Reform News.[4] Heartland also hosts PolicyBot, which it refers to as the "Internet's most extensive clearing-house for the work of free-market think tanks." The database contains 22,000 documents from 350 U.S. right-wing think tanks and advocacy groups.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Geez, just another dingbat right wing site, primarily funded by you-know-how. So far you are batting zero, Henry.

Heartland Institute - SourceWatch

The Heartland Institute, according to the Institute's web site, is a nonprofit organization whose mission is "to discover and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems".[1] The Institute campaigns in support of:

"Common-sense environmentalism", such as opposition to the the Kyoto Protocol aimed at countering global warming
Genetically engineered crops and products;
The privatization of public services;
The introduction of school vouchers;
The deregulation of health care insurance;
and against:

What it refers to as "junk science";
Tobacco control measures such as tobacco tax increases (the Institute denies the health effects of second-hand smoke);
The institute was founded in 1984 by David H. Padden, now the President of Padco Lease Corporation and Joseph L. Bast, Heartland's President and CEO.[2] In 2007 it spent over $5.8 million on its activities.[3]

The Institute sees its primary audience as "the nation’s 8,300 state and national elected officials and approximately 8,400 local government officials."[4] For five of the Insitute's priority policy areas, Heartland produces 20-page tabloid-sized monthly newspapers which are primarily distributed to elected officials, journalists and donors. (The five publications are Budget & Tax News, Environment & Climate News, Health Care News, Infotech & Telecom News and School Reform News.[4] Heartland also hosts PolicyBot, which it refers to as the "Internet's most extensive clearing-house for the work of free-market think tanks." The database contains 22,000 documents from 350 U.S. right-wing think tanks and advocacy groups.

3,000 Low Temp Records Set This July!

The Earth agrees with the studies you're trying to discredit

 

[Oddball]

Geez, just another dingbat right wing site, primarily funded by you-know-how. So far you are batting zero, Henry.

Heartland Institute - SourceWatch

Speaking of batting oh-fer:

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.

It is always bad form to use the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. But there are some cases when it is not really a fallacy, such as when one needs to evaluate the truth of factual statements (as opposed to lines of argument or statements of value) made by interested parties. If someone has an incentive to lie about something, then it would be naive to accept his statements about that subject without question. It is also possible to restate many ad hominem arguments so as to redirect them toward ideas rather than people, such as by replacing "My opponents are fascists" with "My opponents' arguments are fascist."

 

[Old Rocks]

Once again, all the Scientific Societies, all the National Acedemies of Science, and all the major Universities state that AGW is a clear and present danger.

Now they are joined by a goodly portion of the Military in charge of looking at future threats to our National Security, as well as those in the Intelligence Community.

But you fruitcakes on an internet message board are so much smarter than all of these people. LOL!

 

[Oddball]

Once again, all the Scientific Societies, all the National Acedemies of Science, and all the major Universities state that AGW is a clear and present danger.

Now they are joined by a goodly portion of the Military in charge of looking at future threats to our National Security, as well as those in the Intelligence Community.

But you fruitcakes on an internet message board are so much smarter than all of these people. LOL!

SWING!....and a miss.

Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority). This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area. For instance, some people like to quote Einstein's opinions about politics (he tended to have fairly left-wing views), as though Einstein were a political philosopher rather than a physicist. Of course, it is not a fallacy at all to rely on authorities whose expertise relates to the question at hand, especially with regard to questions of fact that could not easily be answered by a layman -- for instance, it makes perfect sense to quote Stephen Hawking on the subject of black holes.

At least in some forms of debate, quoting various sources to support one's position is not just acceptable but mandatory. In general, there is nothing wrong with doing so. Even if the person quoted has no particular expertise in the area, he may have had a particularly eloquent way of saying something that makes for a more persuasive speech. In general, debaters should be called down for committing argumentum ad verecundiam only when (a) they rely on an unqualified source for information about facts without other (qualified) sources of verification, or (b) they imply that some policy must be right simply because so-and-so thought so.

 

[Old Rocks]

Geez, just another dingbat right wing site, primarily funded by you-know-how. So far you are batting zero, Henry.

Heartland Institute - SourceWatch

Speaking of batting oh-fer:

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.

It is always bad form to use the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. But there are some cases when it is not really a fallacy, such as when one needs to evaluate the truth of factual statements (as opposed to lines of argument or statements of value) made by interested parties. If someone has an incentive to lie about something, then it would be naive to accept his statements about that subject without question. It is also possible to restate many ad hominem arguments so as to redirect them toward ideas rather than people, such as by replacing "My opponents are fascists" with "My opponents' arguments are fascist."

And all your silly yapping cannot hide the fact that you have no science on your side of the debate. You have lost this debate, and further events will show how utterly without merit the garbage you have posted truly was.

 

[Oddball]

The only person inanely yapping here is you...The old fart dingbat who already admitted that he is letting others do his thinking for him.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1365297-post56.html

 

[Harry Dresden]

Good post there Harry. But the guy with a single digit IQ named Old Rocks, AKA: Roxie, Rockhead...will tell you that those are all funded by oil companies and have been paid off. Like his hadn't.

he asked for ONE group....i gave him 18.....the guy is so fucking stupid....he asked a question and all you have to do is goggle it and you will get hundreds of answers....anyone who makes a claim like Old Dried Up Balls did is a dumb ass in the first degree.....to ACTUALLY say there are NO descenters ANYWHERE....geezus.. as Spock would say...FASCINATING.........

Do you have the faintest what a scientific society is? None of these are. And you even included Exxon Funded Skeptics as an organization. You are truly one brain dead fool.

Challenge remains, one scientific society that is disenting on global warming.

what the hell you babbling about.....i just went to about 4 of these org. web sites and its funny how scientist are named as the ones that are doing the research for these orgs. or are the ones heading it up....perhaps rocks its because they are not in line with what YOU want to see....and why should everyone agree that your source is not somehow a little biased because certain guys are making a buck out of this also.....Global warming is not as bad as you and your Buddy Al Gore says it is Rocks,also it is worse than what the other side of the coin says it is.....there are PLENTY of qualified Climatologist who say Gores side is a group of extremist who are making a buck off this and those same guys will say the naysayers are out of line also and are making a buck themselves.....ill stick with those who are not using scare tactics to get their agenda across and i will stay away from those who say nothing is happening....ill go with the real scientist on this....you know the ones who are not in anyones pocket....

 

[Old Rocks]

he asked for ONE group....i gave him 18.....the guy is so fucking stupid....he asked a question and all you have to do is goggle it and you will get hundreds of answers....anyone who makes a claim like Old Dried Up Balls did is a dumb ass in the first degree.....to ACTUALLY say there are NO descenters ANYWHERE....geezus.. as Spock would say...FASCINATING.........

Do you have the faintest what a scientific society is? None of these are. And you even included Exxon Funded Skeptics as an organization. You are truly one brain dead fool.

Challenge remains, one scientific society that is disenting on global warming.

what the hell you babbling about.....i just went to about 4 of these org. web sites and its funny how scientist are named as the ones that are doing the research for these orgs. or are the ones heading it up....perhaps rocks its because they are not in line with what YOU want to see....and why should everyone agree that your source is not somehow a little biased because certain guys are making a buck out of this also.....Global warming is not as bad as you and your Buddy Al Gore says it is Rocks,also it is worse than what the other side of the coin says it is.....there are PLENTY of qualified Climatologist who say Gores side is a group of extremist who are making a buck off this and those same guys will say the naysayers are out of line also and are making a buck themselves.....ill stick with those who are not using scare tactics to get their agenda across and i will stay away from those who say nothing is happening....ill go with the real scientist on this....you know the ones who are not in anyones pocket....

God, are you really this stupid? Having a scientist in an organization does not make that organization a scientific society. National Academies of Science have scientists from all fields, and every single one of them, from nations that have many differant political systems, state that AGW is a fact and a clear and present danger.

You have lost this debate, you cannot show a scientific society that does not state AGW is a reality. Your dissent into slinging insults towards Al Gore is simply validation of your loss. For Gore is not a scientist, just someone that put what the scientists are saying into layman's terms. He has stated that many times. Outside of that, he is an ex-politician that has gone into the investment business, and made a bundle of money from the hi-tech sector when it was on a downturn. So your whining about his successes affects him not one whit. He doesn't care. I don't care. The rest of the world does not care. Only you and a few fruitcakes care.

 

[Old Rocks]

The only person inanely yapping here is you...The old fart dingbat who already admitted that he is letting others do his thinking for him.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1365297-post56.html

Hey Doooooooode, most here understand your lack of mental abilities.

 

[Oddball]

My mental abilities brought me to skepticism from being a wackaloon cargo cultist, like you.

But I imagine if it were me as the one who refuses to think for himself and appeals to authority, I'd want to deflect, too.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Do you have the faintest what a scientific society is? None of these are. And you even included Exxon Funded Skeptics as an organization. You are truly one brain dead fool.

Challenge remains, one scientific society that is disenting on global warming.

what the hell you babbling about.....i just went to about 4 of these org. web sites and its funny how scientist are named as the ones that are doing the research for these orgs. or are the ones heading it up....perhaps rocks its because they are not in line with what YOU want to see....and why should everyone agree that your source is not somehow a little biased because certain guys are making a buck out of this also.....Global warming is not as bad as you and your Buddy Al Gore says it is Rocks,also it is worse than what the other side of the coin says it is.....there are PLENTY of qualified Climatologist who say Gores side is a group of extremist who are making a buck off this and those same guys will say the naysayers are out of line also and are making a buck themselves.....ill stick with those who are not using scare tactics to get their agenda across and i will stay away from those who say nothing is happening....ill go with the real scientist on this....you know the ones who are not in anyones pocket....

God, are you really this stupid? Having a scientist in an organization does not make that organization a scientific society. National Academies of Science have scientists from all fields, and every single one of them, from nations that have many differant political systems, state that AGW is a fact and a clear and present danger.

You have lost this debate, you cannot show a scientific society that does not state AGW is a reality. Your dissent into slinging insults towards Al Gore is simply validation of your loss. For Gore is not a scientist, just someone that put what the scientists are saying into layman's terms. He has stated that many times. Outside of that, he is an ex-politician that has gone into the investment business, and made a bundle of money from the hi-tech sector when it was on a downturn. So your whining about his successes affects him not one whit. He doesn't care. I don't care. The rest of the world does not care. Only you and a few fruitcakes care.

you asked for 1 scientific society asshole i showed you a bunch.....just because YOU dont agree with who they are does not mean they are not....i dont paticulary care for your choices either....some are pretty damned extreame....if i showed you a list right now of a whole fuckin shitload of individuale scientist who say that your side is overeacting to the studies that have been done so far....you would just come up with more excuses as to why what their saying is useless drivel.....bottom line Shithead you are buying hook line and sinker what the Environmentalist have built into frenzy on this....remember the article i showed on INTIMIDATION you know the one you did not comment on....

 

[Meister]

The only person inanely yapping here is you...The old fart dingbat who already admitted that he is letting others do his thinking for him.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1365297-post56.html

Hey Doooooooode, most here understand your lack of mental abilities.

I disagree Old Rocks, your the one that lack mental abilities, and your posts lack the saltiness. It's a NikFail on your part.

 

[DiveCon]

Come, dumb fuck, give me one scientific society holding a dissenting position? You cannot do it, can you. Just another ignorant jackass braying his stupidity for the whole world to hear. Don't you guys ever get tired of proving yourselves to be cretins?

heres one you piece of Carbon Shit.....

Extra - WSJ.com....
intimidation? real nice aint it fuck head.....heres a group of organizations .....

*

[edit]
Organizational skeptics

* Australian APEC Study Centre
* Competitive Enterprise Institute (US) [3]
* Doctors for Disaster Preparedness
* Exxon-Funded Skeptics
* Friends of Science (Canada)
* George C. Marshall Institute (US)
* Heartland Institute (US)
* Institute of Economic Affairs (UK)
* Institute of Public Affairs (Australia)
* International Climate Science Coalition (NZ)
* International Policy Network (UK)
* Lavoisier Group (Australia)
* Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NSRP) (Canada)
* New Zealand Climate Science Coalition
* Scientific Alliance (UK)
* The United Kingdom House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs
* NZ Center for Policy Research (NZ) [4]
* New Zealand Climate Change Coalition (NZ) [5]

[edit]
SourceWatch resources

What a pea brain posts...

Extra - WSJ.com....

Climate of Fear
Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.

by RICHARD LINDZEN


RICHARD LINDZEN
According to Ross Gelbspan in a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine, Lindzen "... charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus, was underwritten by OPEC." However, according to Alex Beam in a 2006 article in the The Boston Globe, Lindzen said that although he had accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees from "fossil-fuel types" in the 1990s, he had not received any money from these since. Lindzen has elsewhere described the Gelbspan allegation as a "slander."

Lindzen has been a member of several think tanks including the Cato Institute and the George C. Marshall Institute that have accepted money from companies such as ExxonMobil and Daimler Chrysler.

What a pea brain believes...

THIS is who to trust on funded environmental studies...


AND
THESE are the experts on climate change...


If God created trees, shouldn't liberals be the ones calling CONSERVE-ative christians tree huggers???

and here is a fucking moronic PEA BRAIN doing exactly what was predicted

 

[Maple]

If China, India and the rest of the industialized nations do nothing, which India has stated very clearly that they won't comply with new standards, what do we think we are going to achieve by complying?????? Answer- absolutely nothing except make our country less competitive and cause another incredible unemployment crisis.

 

[Harry Dresden]

and here is a fucking moronic PEA BRAIN doing exactly what was predicted

only because he blindly follows what the Hypocrite Kennedy tells him....like Kennedy aint making a buck telling useful idiots like Bfrgn what to think....

 

[Oddball]

What a pea brain posts...

Extra - WSJ.com....

Climate of Fear
Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.

by RICHARD LINDZEN


RICHARD LINDZEN
According to Ross Gelbspan in a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine, Lindzen "... charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus, was underwritten by OPEC." However, according to Alex Beam in a 2006 article in the The Boston Globe, Lindzen said that although he had accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees from "fossil-fuel types" in the 1990s, he had not received any money from these since. Lindzen has elsewhere described the Gelbspan allegation as a "slander."

Lindzen has been a member of several think tanks including the Cato Institute and the George C. Marshall Institute that have accepted money from companies such as ExxonMobil and Daimler Chrysler.

What a NEUTRON BRAIN posts:

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Amazing, not a scientific society, either.

George C. Marshall Institute - SourceWatch

George C. Marshall Institute
From SourceWatch
Jump to: navigation, search

This article is part of the Climate change portal on SourceWatch.
This article is part of the front groups portal on Sourcewatch. Join our team of citizen journalists researching and exposing industry secrets.
The George C. Marshall Institute (GMI) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization founded in 1984. The think tank's mission is to "encourage the use of sound science in making public policy about important issues for which science and technology are major considerations." The "program emphasizes issues in national security and the environment."[1]
According to the Center for Science in the Public Interest: "The Marshall Institute investigates facts concerning global climate change. The Institute also studies the implications of the Kyoto Protocol upon national security. The Institute is partially supported by the Exxon Education Foundation and American Standard Companies."[2]

In a 2009 essay, former Marshall Institute Executive Director, Matthew B. Crawford, wrote that after he commenced with the group in September 2001 "certain perversities became apparent as I settled into the job. It sometimes required me to reason backward, from desired conclusion to suitable premise. The organization had taken certain positions, and there were some facts it was more fond of than others. As its figurehead, I was making arguments I didn't fully buy myself. Further, my boss seemed intent on retraining me according to a certain cognitive style — that of the corporate world, from which he had recently come. This style demanded that I project an image of rationality but not indulge too much in actual reasoning."[

This article is part of the Climate change portal on SourceWatch.

See? Climate change, not Global Warming because its the coldest July ever

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Once again, all the Scientific Societies, all the National Acedemies of Science, and all the major Universities state that AGW is a clear and present danger.

Now they are joined by a goodly portion of the Military in charge of looking at future threats to our National Security, as well as those in the Intelligence Community.

But you fruitcakes on an internet message board are so much smarter than all of these people. LOL!

3,000 Low Temp Records Set This July!

The Earth mocks you and your faux science

I love when it snows in Las Vegas during a Global Warm...er, I mean Climate Change Seminar

 

[Liability]

Once again, all the Scientific Societies, all the National Acedemies of Science, and all the major Universities state that AGW is a clear and present danger.

Now they are joined by a goodly portion of the Military in charge of looking at future threats to our National Security, as well as those in the Intelligence Community.

But you fruitcakes on an internet message board are so much smarter than all of these people. LOL!

3,000 Low Temp Records Set This July!

The Earth mocks you and your faux science

I love when it snows in Las Vegas during a Global Warm...er, I mean Climate Change Seminar

Coming up next, algore sings "O' Susanna!"

It rained all night
The day I left
The weather it was dry
The sun so hot,
I froze to death
Susanna, don't you cry​