What Do We Think About Climate Change

Here is the truth about the Heartland Institute, a bit different than portrayed by Boston.

http://www.heartland.org/about/truthsquad.html


If you go to Google Earth, and type in 19 South Lasalle St, Chicago, you will find a big *** office building instead of a tin shed. The Heartland Institute has a full time staff of 35 and academic associates across the country in some of our countrys leading universities. If you actually visit the groups web site you will find it to be far more substantial than the misinformation Boston has once again posted here.

Once again, Boston is proven a fraud.

 

Here's some that's even MORE relevant from Tom Segalstad. This presentation has bee posted in its entirety several times to the thread in the last year, but most warmers cannot be bothered to stain their spotless minds with the works of 'deniers'; I hope you can be more open minded, Alan.

I have not had much time to devote to internet 'play' in the last few days as business is picking up, so I'm getting home late and out early the next day.











Jimbo

 

You're joking, right? You actually went to the Heartland Institute's own web page to find out the 'truth' about them?

I'm sorry. The truth, which is documented almost everywhere but on their own site, is that they used to shill for the tobacco industry and now they shill for the oil industry.

Oil companies have contributed substantially to the Heartland Institute. ExxonMobil contributed a total of $560,000 between 1998 and 2005. This included $119,000 in 2005, ExxonMobil's largest gift to Heartland in that period. Nearly 40% of funds from ExxonMobil were specifically designated for climate change projects. Greenpeace research showed that the Heartland Institute had received almost $800,000 from ExxonMobil.

During the time that the Heartland Institute was contesting the health risks of secondhand smoke, it received significant funding from Philip Morris.


Here's a classic example of their intellectual dishonesty:

In April 2008, environmental journalist Richard Littlemore wrote that a bibliography written by Dennis Avery and posted on Heartland’s Web site, titled "500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares,”[ included at least 45 scientists who neither knew of their inclusion in the list, nor agreed with its claims regarding global warming. Dozens of the scientists asked the Heartland Institute to remove their names from the list; for instance, Gregory Cutter of Old Dominion University wrote, "I have NO doubts... the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there." Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford wrote "Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!"

The Institute refused to do so.

It's hard to believe you're actually trying to portray this gaggle of prostitutes as serious scientists. They do no significant research of their own; their output basically consists of propaganda and 'opinion pieces' for whatever cause they happen to be pushing.

And I don't know why you're so impressed by their address. Boston may have exaggerated, but 19 South Lasalle is simply a commercial office building, that sublets to anyone who can pay the rent. The Heartland Institute leases a suite there... just like a divorce lawyer, the Bank of India, the Burrito Beach taco chain and a whole lot of other people do.

 

Another little bit of info for people who actually believe the Heartland Institute is a scientific organization. Here's their current mission statement:

"Heartland's mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Such solutions include parental choice in education, choice and personal responsibility in health care, market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of public services, and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do a better job than government bureaucracies."

A previous version, up until 2006, included the phrase, "...devoted to turning ideas into social movements that empower people". Their 2008 Annual Report says their primary target is "the nation’s 8,300 state and national elected officials and approximately 8,400 local government officials."

Simply put, folks, they aren't a scientific research organization; they're a political and social advocacy group. In other words, they're a bunch of friggen lobbyists. Why do you insist on quoting them like they're some sort of objective source for scientific facts?

 

There's no reaching them Troy. It is a far easier to pretend like we are doing no harm, hence the retaliatory behavior when anyone comes with evidence of our virus like behavior on this planet and destroys their precious delusion. You will find this within any neo fascist conservative group.

 

Jimbo,

There is nothing in the figures you posted that supports your contention that increasing the CO2 in the ocean will lead to precipitation of additional calcium carbonate. (Remember, this is the topic under discussion in this sub-thread.)

I will make a few comments on various figures you posted.

The first figure is on acidification of the ocean. This is no doubt an interesting topic, but since it is not what is under consideration in this sub-thread (which is whether adding CO2 to the ocean will lead to precipitation of CaCO3), it is pretty much irrelevant to this discussion. About the only thing that is relevant to the discussion is that it is pretty much consistent with my earlier comment that -log(pCO2)=~3.4.

The second figure is a very short piece on carbonate buffers. The chemical equation that the author posted is

CO2(g) + H2O + Ca++ --> CaCO3 +2H+

It is a correctly balanced equation for part of the carbonate system. However, standing alone it is an incomplete description of the system because the system is far more complex than what is included in this equation. In particular, the author does not include processes that involve bicarbonate (HCO3-). This is no small issue because under oceanic conditions with -log(pCO2)=~3.4 the bicarbonate concentration is quite a bit higher than the carbonate concentration. Estimating the numbers from figures 5.6 and 5.7 of http://lawr.ucdavis.edu/classes/ssc102/Section5.pdf the bicarbonate concentration is something like 10X higher than the carbonate concentration. Therefore, bicarbonate dominates, and ignoring processes involving bicarbonate will lead to highly distorted conclusions. Figures 5.6 and 5.7 just referred to give a more complete picture of the carbonate system because it includes all the relevant species. (However, see comments later about silicates and aluminum containing species.)

The next figure is titled "ocean carbonate system" The labeling on the graphs is too small for me to read, so I can't comment on it. However, I will comment on the text caption. If I may paraphrase, it basically says that under normal oceanic conditions increasing the partial pressure of CO2 will not cause calcium carbonate to dissolve. This statement is an oversimplification. Whether one regards the statement as true or not depends on one's threshold for considering small numbers to be significant. The fact is, increasing the CO2 level causes a small amount of CaCO3 to dissolve. This is evident in figures 5.6 and 5.7 where the bicarbonate concentration is increasing with increasing CO2. This can only come from the dissolution of CaCO3, along with the reaction with H2CO3 (essentially the CO2 level). The relative increase in HCO3- is steep, but the total bicarbonate is still rather low (though still 10X higher than the carbonate concentration), so the amount of calcium carbonate that dissolves is rather low, at least until the CO2 level increases to somewhat higher levels, at which point the CaCO3 starts to dissolve faster. Thus, if one equates a small amount of CaCO3 dissolution with zero dissolution then the calcium carbonate does not dissolve with increasing CO2, at least not until the CO2 level gets much higher. However, if one equates a small amount of dissolution of CaCO3 with a non-zero amount of dissolution then one would say that CaCO3 is dissolving when the CO2 partial pressure increases. The second position is, in fact, strictly true, though the first position can be considered "almost true" for some purposes. Note that nowhere in the figure caption is there anything to support your contention that increasing the CO2 partial pressure will increase produce an increasing amount of CaCO3 precipitation.

The next figure is entitled "More ocean buffers". This figure discusses buffers involving silicates and and some aluminum containing species. This is interesting, but less relevant than you might think. The figure points out that these species produce a very high buffering capacity. For the sake of discussion let us assume this is true. The problem is that the term "buffering capacity" refers to stabilization of pH, not stabilization of aqueous CO2 concentration. Furthermore, the author of this figure makes no comment on how all this would relate to dissolution or precipitation of CaCO3. The second of these equations would lead to precipitation of CaCO3 with increasing CO2. However, one cannot make this make that conclusion in this particular case because the ocean is a far more complicated system than this because this reaction is coupled to several others involving CO2, HCO3- and CO3--. To make any conclusions about dissolution or precipitation of CaCO3 one would need to solve for all the coupled processes and not consider this one process.

The last figure is from Principles of Geochemistry, third edition, by Brian Mason, dated 1967, about 43 years ago. You quote a statement from the book indicating that the ocean is in equilibrium with respect to most elements. The other quote indicates that the oceans control the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The key thing about these quotes is that they say nothing about the subject of the sub-thread we were discussing, which is the effect of CO2 on precipitation or dissolution of CaCO3. Therefore, they are entirely irrelevant to the present discussion. Perhaps you could start another sub discussion and put the figure in that sub discussion, a discussion for which the figure would be relevant to the topic.

 

Baloney! You were simply making up numbers about alleged 30 year old predictions that the sea level would rise several meters by now and then fraudulently (or if not fraudulently, then carelessly) attributing the predictions to the "experts".

 

In the interests of accuracy and fairness, Alan, I'd like to point out that it was Sheepy (whoever the heck he is) who made the original claim.

Hoyt just noisily and fraudulently (or carelessly) agreed with him.....

 

Well, I tend to be pretty careful about throwing around terms like neo-fascist. I think you can be pretty conservative without being one, just as very few liberals qualify as communists.

But concerning the Heartland Institute, I am getting tired of hearing their press releases and bogus papers quoted as the last word in genuine science. Like I said, they're a lobbying group--not a scientific foundation.

Here's a quick rundown of the agenda they've been pushing lately. You'll notice that a lot of it has little or nothing to do with science.

1. Opposition to any government regulations or action regarding global warming/climate change/AGW.

2. Acceptance of genetically engineered crops and products.

3. Privatization of government-supplied public services.

4. School vouchers, to allow parents to send their children to private schools using taxpayer funds.

5. Deregulation of health care insurance companies.

 

I stand corrected on the source of the original claim. Therefore, my direct criticism applies to Sheepy instead of Hoyt, though I think that to the extent that Hoyt takes the same line then at least some of the criticism rubs off on him as well.

 

"Rapid Global Climate Shift" my #$$. It was the onset of the new ice age.

Well spun, though.

 

You guys have been pretending you are doing no harm for decades. You didn't fool us though. Unfortunately, you are still leading the sheeple to their doom.

You are half-right. Our present government is neo-fascist but it is not conserving anything; especially our constitution, borders, national sovereignty, language, borders or culture.

 

I agree with Sheepy on this issue 100% so cast your stones 'cause I don't give a flyin' flip either way. You will be (have been already) proven wrong. The whole world will know it and you know it.

 

Sounds like an organization liberals love to hate. They don't pass themselves off as a scientific organization, that's just your mistaken(again) interpretation. They are a free market think tank. That you don't agree is your opinion, but once again, you are not entitled to your own set of facts.

 

Spoken like a true hater of mankind. But you left out racist homophobe. If you are going to be left wing demagogue get it right. The only delusions out there are in the minds of those that entertain the notion that the puny alleged mitigation scenarios would actually have an impact on a climate issue of dubious heritage and are not simply a method of imposing a social engineering agenda on a inattentive populace.