86 1 min 14 yrs

Global warming hysteria exposed. 

Powerline writes:  “Earlier this month, the Heartland Institute sponsored the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change in New York. The Conference differed from most such events in that it was devoted to science, not politics or propaganda.”

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

86 thoughts on “Eat Your heart out, Al GOre

  1. "the Heartland Institute"

    Sounds so much better than "Exxon".

    This is just getting desperate.

  2. Patty – do you know what the Heartland Institute is or, more importantly, do you care.

    Citing them on anti-global warming is like citing Dunkin Donuts on the goodness of pastry products.

  3. "Heartland Institute "

    Oh My! LOL

    I don’t think Big Al will be losing any sleep yet!

  4. What’s with the knee jerk affection for attacking the messenger (in this case The Heartland Institute) instead of engaging with the message (in this case: AGW is a fraudulent political scam)

    Per Wiki:

    The Heartland Institute is an America libertarian/conservative free market-oriented public policy think tank based in Chicago, Illinois. It was founded in 1984, and is designated as a 501(c)(3)non-profit by the Internal Revenue Service.

    The Heartland Institute is advised by a 15 member board of directors, which meets quarterly. As of 2008, it has a full-time staff of 30, including editors and senior fellows.[2]

    The Heartland Institute’s research and advocacy cover a variety of issues including government spending, taxation, healthcare, tobacco policy, global warming, and free-market environmentalism. In its early years, it focused on policies relevant to the Midwestern United States; since 1993 it has focused on reaching elected officials and opinion leaders in all 50 states. In addition to research, the Heartland Institute features an Internet application called PolicyBot which serves as a clearinghouse for research from other think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation, the American Legislative Exchange Council, and the Cato Institute. The Institute’s president and CEO is Joseph L. Bast."

    What’s your beef, guys?

  5. Patty – even the modern day Oracle of Delphi (a/k/a Wiki) you refer us to lists the absurd problems the Heartland Institute has encountered as a propoganda machine. It is comical, a Merchants of Death (MOD Squad) out of an imagination like Christopher Buckley’s "Thank You For Smoking" except it is real and not fiction.

    The Heartland Institute is a joke.

  6. Mahons:

    See: I knew you’d embarrass Patty. You have no heart—and neither has the Heartland.

  7. "a propoganda machine"

    Give me a break, Mahons. You sound like Obama…you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    Besides, last we spoke on the threads you said I was "retarded," or something.

    So, why do you argue with me? Just move along. Nothing to see here for you.

  8. "Besides, last we spoke on the threads you said I was "retarded," or something. "

    You should apologise for that Mahons.

    The polite term is "challenged" or "special".

  9. I think that any conference, debate, dialogue about climate change is to be welcomed and that orthodoxies should always be challenged. But I am not sure that this organisation has any great claim to know more about it that anyone else.
    When you look and see what the Heartland Institute is in favour 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:
    * Tobacco control measures such as tobacco tax increases (the Institute denies the health effects of second-hand smoke);
    (source : http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute) it does make it clear from which part of the political agenda it is coming. I am not saying that makes them wrong, but they are clearly aligned with a particular view of the world.
    I still prefer to listen to organisations that are rather more politically neutral – although no one is claiming a monopoly on wisdom and if this conference has useful science to contribute I am sure it will be taken on board.

  10. Patty – You just been exposed putting up a propoganda group’s conference as a scientific meeting, and when the group’s agenda was stated to you, you cut and paste from Wiki. I don’t really feel I am arguing with you as much as I am simply pointing out the error of your ways.

    Argument would suggest that there is a good faith rational basis for your postion, even if I disagree with it. But there isn’t.

    In any event I recall using the phrase "stupid ass" which is much more collegial than the phrase retarded, though juvenile to a degree. Alas, sometimes we don’t all walk on the side of the angels. If I did use the phrase retarded, I apologize, as it would imply an innocence I don’t think you exhibit.

  11. It seems at least as credible as the UN’s motley bunch of taxpayer funded research grant junkies.

  12. It seems at least as credible as the UN’s motley bunch of taxpayer funded research grant junkies.

    What about The Royal Society – what is you view on that body of scientists?

  13. NRG -even if that were true, is "at least as credible" the standard you wish to strive for?

  14. Mahons: It is not I that has been exposed. It is you.

    I don’t "think you could go to Hell for this," but you’re right, you aren’t walking with angels…as well you know.

    Here’s your out: don’t address comments to me. Easypeazy. Lemon squeezy. Ignore me, and I ignore you.

  15. Oops, I misquoted you, Mahons. I should have written I don’t think "you’ll burn for this."

  16. Patty, it seems the climate change fanatics are keen to avoid dealing with the actual evidence, which seems credible. At the very least it stops the lie that "there is no debate" over climate change.

    It is chilly tonight.

  17. You had me at Goodbye.

    I shall henceforth direct my witty scorn at "She Who Must Not Be Named."

  18. NRG: "At the very least it stops the lie that "there is no debate" over climate change."

    Good point! Let the debate rage on, I say.

  19. NRG – One may debate the means of combating world hunger, the past remedies and failures, the cause and effect. But one certainly would not debate its existence. In essence, despite overwhelming scientific evidence the anti-global warming crowd seems to be doing that very thing – acting as if there was a credible debate on the topic.

    I find that the anti-global warming crowd here thinks their incredible sources are enough to create debate, when in fact they merely create noise. I’d love to see them for once offer a credible source (perhaps even refrain from an Al Gore reference). But is hasn’t happened yet.

  20. keen to avoid dealing with the actual evidence, which seems credible.

    I can’t imagine anyone would be keen to avoid dealing with the evidence – that is how scientific progress is made, and the debate should always be continued. But the overwhelming evidence is for AGW and acting under the cautionary principle does require us to take measures to reduce the harm – even if it turns out the science is wrong.
    Of course one should always challenge orthodoxies. After all the orthodox view was at one time that the sun went round a flat earth, so credible alternatives should always be welcomed and tested and if they fit the evidence and have a credible explanation, then the model improves and the theory is advanced.

  21. "After all the orthodox view was at one time that the sun went round a flat earth,"

    I suspect the Heartland Institute is probably still debating that too.

  22. The Royal Society receives most of its funds from the government and is therefore in the pay of the government. It provides the government with what the government wants to hear on MMGW.

  23. You’re obviously in on it too Mahons. I imagine the only scientist Allen trusts is Fred Leuchter.

  24. It provides the government with what the government wants to hear on MMGW.
    And you know this how …?

    So the Royal Society – founded under Charles II – has been a government lackey for a few centuries then? There has been a conspiracy that has embroiled every one of the country’s top scientists since Newton?
    Do you really think that is a credible explanation?
    You don’t think, perhaps, that than an organisation which counts 14 Nobel scientific laureates and includes such scientific greats as Crick and Watson, Darwin, Flemming, Newton, Berners Lee that they might just be independent minded and capable of being trusted when it comes to science?

  25. Jimmy – It is true that I am in the pay of the Masons (note the similar name spelling) to promote global warming and a host of other liberal/radical weather issues – like a soft rain, Ruben Hurricane Carter and of course The Weather Underground.

    However, you are mistaken as to Allan’s trust. Dr. Zachary Smith is his leading source.

  26. Have any of the global warming advocates here on this thread bothered to glance at the graph I posted?

    Does it seem logical – scientific – that the projected "warming" outpaces any actual observed warming trend heretofor seen on planet earth?

    Doesn’t the statistician in you just cry out "Stop! The IPCC’s assumptions are incorrect!"

    According to Al Gore’s prediction we have 6 more years until Global Warming Armageddon….sadly for him, he made this prediction 10 years ago before the current global cooling trend started.

  27. Indeed Patty, none of them have disputed the assertion from the Heartland Institute that the IPCC’s argument is already demonstrably false. All of the institutions in the western world which are dependent on government funding have become corrupted by such funding, which was the intention anyway.

  28. All of the institutions in the western world which are dependent on government funding have become corrupted by such funding, which was the intention anyway

    Sorry to sound like a scratched record, but you know this how?

    The simple answer to your question Patty, is I have no idea. I am not a climate scientist – are you? I have no reasonable way of knowing if the science is good or not. So I have to make judgements on the scientists and the organisations from which they come. I can think of no more august a body than the Royal Society. They are the country’s leading scientists – and among the very best in the world.
    I don’t think there is some huge conspiracy – where is there a jot of evidence that there is? Where is there any evidence that the Royal Society is a front for the government?
    Does that seem a credible explanation?

  29. Jimmy – Classic. But let us face the plain truth that we will never stand up to their blue ribbon scientific committee of Dr. Phil, Dr. Zaius, Dr. Pepper, Dr. Who, Dr. Seuss and Dr. Zhivago.

  30. Intellectual honesty necessitates the recognition that much of the global warming "science" is in fact politics, and that many respected scientists have come out questionning AGW.

    It is well documented here at ATW and elsewhere. Easy to find. Easy to verify. Anyone with a modicum of true curiosity on the issue can determine this for themselves.

    How about discussing the actual graph that I posted? Doesn’t the IPCC projection look incorrect to you?

    Has anyone here ever taken math? Stats? Graphing?

  31. "Doesn’t the IPCC projection look incorrect to you? "

    What do you mean incorrect? Based on what? You find the shape unattractive?

  32. Patty, the proponents of MMGW who infest this site have no mathematical training at all. The IPCC prediction extrapolates from a near-sinusoidal curve at close to its greatest rate of change. The result is the catastrophy which the IPCC predicts, yet it is now demonstrably wrong and being proven so in real-time.

  33. There is not topic more boring than the global warming debate or anything to do with climate change or carbon footrpints and all that jazz (and don;t get me started on Jazz, the most pretentious ‘music’ of all) . Yawn ! Yawn! Yawn!

    Now I know what you’re all thinking. If you find it boring, why bother commenting on these threads. Well, I just wanted to tell you all, for no particular reason, that’s all.

  34. It’s not proven, it’s not disproven, and no one here is remotely qualified to comment on the subject.

  35. Ok – I am going to ask you again about the Royal Society – you know that, don’t you…
    I am guessing that they do know about near-sinusoidal
    curves and the like. I guess they do that sort of thing a lot.
    So any chance you could possibly see your way to explaining how come the country’s most august scientific body – all those scientific Nobel Laureates among them, all that history, how come they have been so hoodwinked?
    Any chance at all?

  36. But they’re in on it don’t you see. It’s a conspiracy. Only the Halfwit Institute dares speak the truth.

  37. Allan: Of course! They can’t read the graph, so nothing seems out of whack to them. I often assume people know more than they do. Never occurred to me that the graph I posted would be just a bunch of random lines to the readers here. That was stupid of me.

    It’s no wonder, really, that Al Gore – and the IPCC – gets away with so much bad science.

  38. >>Never occurred to me that the graph I posted would be just a bunch of random lines to the readers here.<<

    Patty, what does the straight (diagonal) dotted line represent and what does it indicate, do you think?

  39. Nobel Laureates, Jaz? Al Gore received a Nobel Prize for a propaganda film. Do you know whom the Nobel Committee rejected in Gore’s favour? Tell me that she was less deserving than the charlatan Gore.

    The fact remains that science has been corrupted and twisted by the leftist establishment. All the scientific institutes and their formerly-respected publications have been infiltrated by the left in exactly the same way as have the political parties, the church, police, educational bodies etc.

  40. Noel: dotted = projected (or assumed if in the past)
    not dotted = observable, on record

    Note there are 2 projections for the future – one is the IPCC projection. It shows a catastrophic increase. See Alan’s comment. He says it better than I can. It assumes a maximum change rate.

    The other assumes historical climate change patterns.

    Interestingly, both projections show an increase in global temperatures (global warming) it’s just that t he IPCC increase is a catastrophic increase while the other increase is incidental.

    You can access the study with the link I provided if you’re really interested. My interest – and the reason I posted it – is to make a broad point – the IPCC’s case for global warming is based on a worse case scenario which is simply not possible.

  41. There is still debate among the scientists. One of the major uncertainties is the effect of clouds and whether the IPCC models have adjusted for clouds accurately:

    "Our paper is an important step toward validating a gut instinct that many meteorologists like myself have had over the years," said Spencer, "that the climate system is dominated by stabilizing processes, rather than destabilizing processes — that is, negative feedback rather than positive feedback."

    The paper doesn’t disprove the theory that global warming is manmade.

    Instead, it offers an alternative explanation for what we see in the climate system which has the potential for greatly reducing estimates of mankind’s impact on Earth’s climate.

    "Since the cloud changes could conceivably be caused by known long-term modes of climate variability — such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, or El Nino and La Nina — some, or even most, of the global warming seen in the last century could simply be due to natural fluctuations in the climate system," Spencer said."

  42. What will happen in 20 years time cannot possibly be proven. It is a hypothesis turning into a prognosis at best.

  43. The Royal Society receives 68.2% of its funding from the government yet, on the opening page of its website, it states that:
    <<The Royal Society is the leading independent scientific body of the UK and the Commonwealth.>>

    For the Royal Society to say that it is independent of its biggest benefactor is erroneous at best, and a downright lie at worst – the latter being more likely given who its main benefactor is.

  44. all the usual suspects The only sources that count are theirs…lol

    The Earth has been cooling for ten straight years, the satelite sensors missed a section of ice the size of California, the computer models have never given the same figures twice, but they can tell in 50 years will all be under water…lol

    Tonights forcast DARK continued DARK with widely scattered light at DAWN

  45. Ok I’ll bite

    "The other assumes historical climate change patterns. "

    Explain what you understand to be the basis of this assumption.

  46. Jimmy: What do you mean? DO you mean why do I feel it more statistically probable that we see a continuation of historical climate patterns than a drastic change as documented by the IPCC?

  47. I’m not asking you what you "feel". I’m asking about the evidential, factual basis for the assumption on which you rely.

  48. remember the IPCC solution (Cap and Trade) was developed by the brain trust at Enron, Ken Lei couldn’t wait for it to be passed.

    Maybe will be lucky and it’ll wind up where he is at right now

  49. It is not I who argues that the planet will see catastrophic warming and that such warming is caused by manmade carbon waste.

    In science, theories are tested and either they hold, or they are found to be incorrect. I think this graph demonstrates just how preposterous the IPCC’s projections of catastrophic global warming are. Show me how I’m wrong.

  50. >>Interestingly, both projections show an increase in global temperatures <<

    Yes, that’s waht the graph you provide indicates, while you say we are in a cooling phase.

    >>The Earth has been cooling for ten straight years,<<

    Yet another person who apparently can’t read your graph, Patty.

  51. Noel: The graph is probably too small to see, but there is an arc and at the present time the arc is trending downwards. Temperatures are cooling. For several years now.

    (I saw a larger copy)

  52. "I think this graph demonstrates just how preposterous the IPCC’s projections of catastrophic global warming are. "

    How does it do that?

  53. Noel: the graph shows an overall temp. increase (one is miniscule, IPCC is catastrophic) over time.

    It’s just a projection.

    The actual arc of temperature over the several past years is trending downward. (this is why Frank and others are always screaming about climate versus weather)

    Never mind about the graph. It’s too small. Too complicated. Wish I’d never posted it.

  54. >>The graph is probably too small to see, but there is an arc and at the present time the arc is trending downwards. Temperatures are cooling. For several years now.<<

    Patty, that’s not really the case. The graph shows, if anything, that temperatures have levelled off since, oh, the past two or three years, which is hardly enough to indicate a trend.

    Moreover, your graph also shows that temperatures are in the long term rising consistently.

  55. Jimmy: The IPCC projection line goes straight up into the future — hotter! hotter! hotter! It’s ridiculous.

  56. I can see where the line goes. You still haven’t explained how you conclude that it’s wrong.

  57. >>Never mind about the graph. It’s too small. Too complicated. Wish I’d never posted it.<<

    Oh, come on! Just an hour or so ago you were sneering at the people here for – you claimed – not being able to understand it like you and Allan.

  58. Discuss amongst yourselves. Or not. You all seem to be pretty set in your opinions so this probably is just an exercise in right world badgering but I am long overdue to do something (it’s 5:30 here) and I have to run.

  59. Noel: well, the graph seemed obvious to me. I thought it was obvious to everyone else. Apparently not. And if I "sneer" it’s a defensive posture brought on by what came before.

    But if you want to be right, ok you’re right. I need to go.

  60. >>and how much are they rising? enough to matter?<<

    Well, they are rising continuously and consistently and show no sign of stopping. So, according to the graph, the only difference between the IPCC and the Heartland scenarios is one of how long it will take us to get there.

    But as it is, the two currently differ by only 0.1 pc, quite insignificant compared to the rise of 0.8 (accordign to Heartland) since 1980 and certainly no need for one to get uppity about the other.

    (by the way, I’d never trust a "scientific" source that jeers at another scientific body for being "politics-driven". Those are the words of bloggers and journalists, not scientists.)

  61. 17yr old Noel, same as your boys
    sickening !
    I’d like to get my hands on the recruiters
    sorry to interrupt thread people

  62. Patty you can’t state the obvious to ostriches.

    Remember when we were kids they believed the core of the earth to be iron now it is generally believed to be uranium.

    Global warming has nothing to do with science it’s a politically based ponzi scheme that give commies wet dreams of complete control

  63. Allan@Aberdeen – let me see if I have this straight. If an organisation, no matter what it is, receives government money it is, by definition corrupted by left wing infiltrators and therefore not to be trusted. So that would include the British Army for example, or indeed the IDF in Israel (or is this vast left wing conspiracy only a British phenomena)?
    And is the corollary also true, that organisations that do not receive government funding are untainted? So an organisation or an individual that, for example, received funding from say tobacco firms, would they be more or less trusted to produce reliable and independent research into the effects of tobacco?
    I presume that as you are so insistent on this vast conspiracy that has taken in every leading scientist in the country since Charles II, that you have a wealth of evidence to back this up. After all there must be mountains of evidence that show how the Royal Society has suppressed good science at the bidding of its political masters?
    If the evidence isn’t there then, alas, it all starts to look a bit like someone clutching at straws, making bold accusations but with nothing to back them up.
    And when you have to start to denigrate the winning of a scientific Nobel prize (and I did make the point – guessing that Al Gore would come up – that these were Nobel prizes for science) as somehow tainted, well you have to ask yourself, is that likely? On the one hand a vast multi-century global conspiracy involving every leading scientist in the country since Newton all of whom are doing the work of the government (and scientists are so famous for being compliant and subservient) – or, on the other hand, there is something to the science?
    Occam’s Razor anyone?

  64. and you get sliced by it Jaz…

    Did I? Not quite sure how that happened as my theory doesn’t require a two-century long global conspiracy involving all of the world’s leading scientists.
    My theory says – perhaps, maybe, you never know, there might be something to this, let’s act on the safe side just in case …

    As for Patty’s claims about the graph – I am not sure that plotting a line on a graph shows much. What assumptions have been made about the projection – and about the factors.
    If we are saying that the growth is linear and the rate of change is constant (or zero) then a linear projection would be fair enough.
    But if the growth is exponential and the rate of growth is linear (or non-constant) then the projection does not have to follow a linear path at all.
    It all depends on the function that drew the graph.
    Now if (if) climate change is linked to increasing atmospheric CO2 then it is not unreasonable that growth is non-linear – and there is a theory that as global warming increases so more CO2 is released which causes more warming … and so on. Under those circumstances an exponential growth once the point of equilibrium is reached is a reasonable conclusion.
    So I am not quite sure that drawing a line on a graph and claiming that it proves – or disproves – that AGW is bunk (or not) is quite the smoking gun that some are claiming.

  65. For the benefit of Allan@Aberdeen, Patty’s graph comes from a paper by Syun-Ichi Akasofu, of The International Arctic Research Center. The IARC was established in 1999 as a cooperative research institute supported by both the U.S. and Japanese governments.

    Damn – those government-sponsored lackeys get everywhere – now we can’t even trust *this* graph as it comes from research funded by government and as we know, that means it has been infiltrated by damn lefties.

  66. It’s n ot of course a published peer-reviewed paper and Akasofu is not a climatologist. On the other hand, as Patty points out, his line is much neater.

  67. Now She Who Must Not Be Named doesn’t want people to view the graph – Pay No Attention To That Man Behind The Curtain!

Comments are closed.