What Do We Think About Climate Change

The only quibbling going on here is your inability to deal with the truth after you have made groundless claims that you can't back up.


Q: Who funds The Heartland Institute?

A: The Heartland Institute is a publicly supported charity under Section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code. Its funding comes from tax-deductible contributions from approximately 2,700 individuals, foundations, and corporations.

Heartland does not solicit or accept grants from government agencies, does not conduct contract research, and it does not rely on direct mail to raise money. No corporate donor contributes more than 5 percent of its annual budget.

People contribute to The Heartland Institute because they share our belief that better information and understanding can improve public policies in such important areas as education, environmental protection, and health care. For more than two decades, Heartland authors have discovered and promoted free-market solutions to social and economic problems.

We do not take positions in order to appease or avoid losing support from individual donors. We have, in fact, a long record of standing behind our research even when it means losing the support of major donors.

For many years, we provided a complete list of Heartland’s corporate and foundation donors on this Web site and challenged other think tanks and advocacy groups to do the same. To our knowledge, not a single group followed our lead.

After much deliberation and with some regret, we now keep confidential the identities of all our donors for the following reasons:

•People who disagree with our views have taken to selectively disclosing names of donors who they think are unpopular in order to avoid addressing the merits of our positions. Listing our donors makes this unfair and misleading tactic possible. By not disclosing our donors, we keep the focus on the issue.

•We have procedures in place that protect our writers and editors from undue influence by donors. This makes the identities of our donors irrelevant.

•We frequently take positions at odds with those of the individuals and companies who fund us, so it is unfair to them as well as to us to mention their funding when expressing our point of view.

•No corporate donor gives more than 5 percent of our budget, and most give far less than that. We have a diverse funding base that is too large to accurately summarize each time we issue a statement.


The above from the Heartland web site.

 

I can't believe it. You're going to the Heartland Institute's own website again, and quoting their shamelessly self-serving bs as some sort of proof of who and what they are?

Why don't you look at what they do, instead? What they do is shill for the causes of the people who give them major funding...whether it be Phillip Morris, Monsanto or ExxonMobile.

They even have personnel from major donors on their board of directors, which makes a complete mockery of their claims to be independent and objective. That includes people like Walter F. Buchholtz, Government Relations & Issues Advisor for ExxonMobil Corporation, and Ray E. Marden, Manager of Industry Affairs for Phillip Morris Corporation.

Following SourceWatch's documentation of Heartland's ties to the tobacco industry, the group wrote that Marden "helped convince others in the company to approve contributions to us because of our opposition to high taxes on cigarettes, the abuse of tort law leading up to the Master Settlement Agreement, and other tobacco-related issues. This was not a conflict of interest: All nonprofit organizations put representatives of foundations and corporations on their boards with the expectation that they help “give or get” financial support ..."

That's a quote directly from their own website too, by the way: http://www.heartland.org/about/truthsquad.html

So what do you mean, "groundless claims I can't back up?" What more do you need, Eddy? A written confession signed by their president, with photocopies on their website?

 

Here is a list of organizations that oppose the consensus on climate change that have received significant donations from Exxon during the years 2000-2003. During just those few short years the total amounts to more than $8.6 million, and that is just from one donor.

Yes, there is not doubt that big energy interests have been mounting an anti-climate change crusade. Their donations to organizations opposed to the scientific consensus on climate change shows that clearly enough. The Heartland Institute is not even the largest recipient of the donations, at least not during the years 2000-2003.

It is, of course, their right to make such donations, but people should not close their eyes to the fact that it is occurring, or for what purpose.

 

For some reason I can't get the file attached to my other post to display, so if you are having the same trouble you may have to download the file to look at the table.

 

"...since you actually said anything intelligent about climate change in this thread" - The topic was settled ages ago...except to the warmers too stupid to know it.

Angel, I did not start the "fascist" thing (it is not that powerful of a word, to me), as it is the domain of ignorant leftists in misuse. I WILL give you this; I have not taken the time to study GW to an extent that I can rebuke every grain of every inane talking point regurtitated by insolent, spoiled, naive, progressives. Now that we have a power grab taking place in this last bastion of freedom (America), it has become very serious to me and people like me. We used to be able to make fun of you or simply ignore you. I am sorry, but because of your success, because of the numbers of you, the power of your collective and the vengeance with which you wield your strength, I am forced to redouble and fortify my positions. I cannot accept you as an equal with which to banter. You, all of you (progressives), are the enemy and it will probably take more than my lifetime to forgive what you have done to the world and to my homeland.
Tho I cannot take the time to fully learn the mechanics of climate, I take solace in the knowledge that no one fully comprehends the enormity of nature's ability to not notice our efforts to tame her. Since I cannot control nature and I have chosen a path that does not include sponging off of others in any way (grants), I can better help my country overcome by starting damage control on the political front, agressively and, to an extent, proactively (Face it - if conservatives had fully attacked progressiveism when it reared it's ugly head during the Johnson administration, we would have been slapped down as McCarthyites. Now that we can see the outcome of Progressivism, e.g., industrious Germans bailing out four-hour-workday Greeks and the eventual collapse of the Euro and probably the Dollar, half will agree; "McCarthy was right", "We have to stop these ********".). If it means making enemies, so be it. If it means fighting for my children's freedom, so be it. Don't take it personally...I hate what you stand for and am trying not to let it breach my shores.

 

your grasping at minutia again, it proves that a quick search did not locate the picture I have already posted on this thread. Your arguments concerning the heartland institute show that they are fraudulently using the names of dedicated scientists claiming that they support there view even long after those scientists have come out and demanded that there named be removed from any of the spin being published by what is obviously a front group for the oil and gas as well as the tobacco companies.

I have to wonder if you have no stronger point of contention with the theory of Rapid Global Climate Shift than to complain about a picture of a tin shed with a sign over the door, Frankly it would not surprise me at all if these clowns spent some of the millions they receive in dirty money to buy themselves a decent office.

tell you what
if come up with the picture do I get a written appology and will you then argue for the theory rather than against since this issue seems to be so high on your list of reasons to believe in it or not
or
if I retract my statement will you then retract any statements you have made that are not also accompanied by irrefutable evidence

( take your time on this important decision there Eddy cause if you recall I've made it clear that I have no issue whatsoever with learning through both my own errors and the errors of others




point being that nothing will convince you that your picking around the distant edges of the theory is a the best you can do to ignore the core of the science which is so overwhelming in its support of the theory that there is simply no debate.

best of luck with that and get back to me on your decision on how you would like to handle the lack of a picture of a tin shed

cheers
B

 

That's clearly evident, no doubt about it whatsoever.

 

Still, I can follow Guillermo and Jimbo better than you, and it would not take a fortnight to get as versed in the important parts as anyone. I will start my rubbish burn today with a tire and diesel...in your honor.

 

That makes a frightening bit of sense Mark cause neither Jimbo or Guillermo understand the science either. Thats kinda the issue to isn't it, for folks who have little or no background in the earth sciences its difficult to understand the convergent sciences involved in the theory, which is why they devised the IPCC to collate the vast amount of data into something less daunting. Reality is though the closer you get to a real climate science degree the higher and higher the percentage of scientists who agree with the theory ( 97% to be precise )

 

I have very little time lately to follow this crazy thread, but it is always gratifying to realize from time to time the idiotice level of some members, like the case of Boston the Scientist, is in good health well alive and kicking.

All the best.

 

97%? Never heard that before.
I'll give you something too, Bos -When people get paid to gather numbers and suppositions to align with an agenda, there is likely a daunting pile of numbers and supposition, and it will likely align with that agenda.
An observation; Jimbo is likely like me but smarter and less aggressive and bothers for principle of the issue. Guillermo flat knows his stuff and seriously believes he can change minds to make a difference. The politics have to hurt him, as well, as his country is in the chain of dominoes and still spending money they don't have.
Troy feels his job is in granite and argues for fun. Some here are progressives and either believe whatever the controllers in their party tell them or just will not give in to conservatives, no matter what - "We have it within our reach! Finally, we are going to get the bike paths and fast rail, solar panels will replace oil, evil people won't be able to drive Ford Excursions, everyone will eat soy cakes, jihadists will love us, Kim Il will become sane, and no damn, red-neck, trailer trash old-school Nationalist is going to stop us!"
Boston, I believe you welcome the coming doom as some sort of payback for what the European part of our ancestry did to the native part of our ancestry. Economic collapse would be an amusing diversion to you and make you with your survival skills top dog.
My short reply is; "don't rag on Jim and Guillermo because of me. The whole thing is about politics, money and everyone's personal struggle with perceptions of right/wrong and nothing about the actual climate and any miniscule, fleeting effect we may have on it." Be careful or some bystanders will mistake you, because of you Mother Earth passion, for a progressive.
Please read this http://www.associatedcontent.com/ar..._the_american_progressive_movement.html?cat=9, Bos, as an insight into why I hate the people in the Whitehouse, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, etc. and their drones. This guy's views so align with mine (at least by skimming, which is all I did), that I would not today be able to define "progressivism" without plagiarizing after reading this. Bos, that's not you, right?

 

OK Mark, fair enough.

Jimbo has frequently talked about the importance of oceans and CO2.

So, it's time now for a simple pop quiz on CO2/H2O/carbonate chemistry to test your understanding of this subject. This not advanced stuff, but only the simplest and most basic of concepts on this topic, and I won't even complicate it by the inclusion of calcium carbonate-related chemistry. It is not possible to even begin to understand the chemistry of atmospheric and oceanic CO2 without knowing the answers to the first two of the following three questions.

This is a closed book test. However, you will get half credit if you decide to make this an open book test. Ready? OK, you may begin now, but no cheating.

1) The CO2/H2O/carbonate system includes the following chemical species: carbon dioxide (CO2), water (H2O), bicarbonate ion (HCO3-), carbonic acid (H2CO3), hydrogen ion (H+), and carbonate ion (CO3--). Your task is to write each of the several chemical equations for the step wise interconversion of one carbon-containing species to the other. (5 points)

2) The solubility of CO2 in water at a partial pressure of 1 atmosphere and a temperature of 15 Celsius is approximately 2 grams CO2 per kg H20. For a body of water in equilibrium with atmospheric CO2 at 400 parts per million (molar basis), what will be the amount of CO2 (in grams) dissolved in a kilogram of the water? (5 points)

3) For extra credit, explain the relationship between thermodynamic activity and solute concentration. (This is an advanced topic, and you are not expected to know this material, so it is worth 10 points extra credit)

 

I am not a chemist and would likely ask a chemist friend, look it up or hire someone if I wanted to know. Can I give you a closed book test on the moral implications of shackling an economy to let others catch up? Hint; It's kinda like teaching to the lowest denominator in public school and dragging all down to that level. It is social justice - Is it right?
Short essay, 500 words, subjective grading. Impress me or answer with one word... "yes" or "no".

 

Just as I thought. You don't know the first thing about the science behind global warming. Therefore, although you are free to have and opinion on the matter, it is not an informed opinion, and your comments on that particular topic can contribute nothing useful to the discussion.

As for your quiz, since it is not on the topic of the science of global warming it doesn't really belong on this thread. Would you care to start another thread on that topic?

 

hey G whats up
nice to see a slight jab and you are all over it
hope all is well
B