Slashdot Mirror

Payment isn't the same as speech. It doesn't have the same inherent right to privacy. If you're suddenly driving around in a Ferrari, I think it's reasonable of society to check that you didn't steal it from someone.

Even raw wealth matters. Using your money, you can buy a lot of political influence, even through legal means. The only safeguard society presently has against this is fiscal transparency: Yes, if you're rich enough you can set up front groups to speak for you, but at least we know (well, if we remember to look) who pays for the opinion pieces.

Get this right: I don't think the goverment has any business knowing what particular books I bought, or which medicines. What I pay for is my business. THAT I pay someone for something, however, is not entirely our own business.

Payment isn't the same as speech. It doesn't have the same inherent right to privacy. If you're suddenly driving around in a Ferrari, I think it's reasonable of society to check that you didn't steal it from someone.

Even raw wealth matters. Using your money, you can buy a lot of political influence, even through legal means. The only safeguard society presently has against this is fiscal transparency: Yes, if you're rich enough you can set up front groups to speak for you, but at least we know (well, if we remember to look) who pays for the opinion pieces.

Get this right: I don't think the goverment has any business knowing what particular books I bought, or which medicines. What I pay for is my business. THAT I pay someone for something, however, is not entirely our own business.

we haven't been offered any money _not_ to publish the best science we can. Hell, it'd be *great* if someone would, but from experience I'd have to conclude that there _is_ no group with bottomless pockets waiting to bribe us into submission...

They don't bribe you into silence, they start their own papers and publish contrary "evidence".
There was a story here a while back about such an instance being uncovered, in Australia IIRC.

but wait, there's more!

"OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war."

"Yet even though the OISM credentials 8 persons as "Faculty", it has no classrooms, or student body."

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

ok, they are cranks with PhDs (no one has said from where) working, among other things, with the Discovery Institute on "Intelligent Design". The unibomber has a PhD too, from one of the best schools in the country. It's largely besides the point.

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

I'm sure someone will accuse me of being a communist for this but I find sourcewatch informative, pity more people don't use it before linking to anti-AGW front sites put up by the CEI, the heartland institue and other anti-science lobbyists.

As an Aussie I enjoy cheaper and higher quality health care than someone in the US but it wasn't always that way I do remeber my parents stuggling with doctors bills in the early 70's. I also remeber the hollow predictions of economic armargedon that would supposedly be ignited by adopting a sane UHC system. IMHO you guys need to get angry about the lobbyists sitting in your senate, their blatant corruption affects everyone not just US citizens.

I see... you link to a piece written by none other than Thomas DiLorenzo (Professor of Economics at Loyola Maryland, I believe) who is a senior fellow of the Mises Institute.

This is the same Thomas DiLorenzo that published a book critical of Lincoln that was rife with misquotes, mis-attributed quotes, and misleading anecdote use?

The same Thomas DiLorenzo that accepted funds (not just accepted -- billed them for it!) from RJR (tobacco company) to write a book called Cancerscam: the diversion of federal cancer funds to politics?

I wouldn't trust that author farther than I could throw him. He writes dishonestly to advance an agenda and to enrich himself.

ignorance indeed:

(1) Greenland used to be green....
Actually it didn't, it was called GREENLand to lure people there...marketing in action. Or perhaps a translation error.

(2) Medieval Warm Period
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/11/medieval-warm-period-mwp/
2000 year temp graph

(3) Rome used to import ENGLISH wine
correlation vs causation

(4) Astronomers have been pointing out *forever* that Major and Minor Ice Ages are dependent on the precession and nutation of the Earth's orbit.
I don't dispute this. However, there is *no* proof of this causing the *rate* at which we are seeing change today. Something else is effecting the system that wasn't around previously...like us.

(5) http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC_final.pdf where proxy data shows the global warming folks are seriously out to lunch
The Heartland Institute? seriously? they are such a blatant shill for Big Oil and Big Business it's not funny.

The recent disclosures that some scientists may not have followed accepted processes for handling data (ignored more complete data sets for smaller data sets that better supported their ideas etc.) are serious things to investigate and rightly should be investigated. I don't know of any climate change proponents who disagree with that.

It doesn't, however, change the other *vast* accumulated data that show a very marked divergence from historical norms at rates not seen previously.

On the contrary, this is quite normal. Ice caps expand and recede all the time and have been for centuries. As MIT climatologist Richard Lindzen pointed out in WSJ today, you're discarding a well-established understanding of the history of the planet by making that claim.

Promoting Lindzen can be counterproductive for climate change deniers:
"In November 2004, climate change skeptic Richard Lindzen was quoted saying he'd be willing to bet that the earth's climate will be cooler in 20 years than it is today. When British climate researcher James Annan contacted him, however, Lindzen would only agree to take the bet if Annan offered a 50-to-1 payout."

I also wonder how many who quote Lindzen on climate change also quote Lindzen on smoking?

On the contrary, this is quite normal. Ice caps expand and recede all the time and have been for centuries. As MIT climatologist Richard Lindzen pointed out in WSJ today, you're discarding a well-established understanding of the history of the planet by making that claim.

Promoting Lindzen can be counterproductive for climate change deniers:
"In November 2004, climate change skeptic Richard Lindzen was quoted saying he'd be willing to bet that the earth's climate will be cooler in 20 years than it is today. When British climate researcher James Annan contacted him, however, Lindzen would only agree to take the bet if Annan offered a 50-to-1 payout."

I also wonder how many who quote Lindzen on climate change also quote Lindzen on smoking?

It would be nice if it was just a repository. But, it's supported by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian think-tank organization. Libertarianism is fine, however, getting large chunks of cash from Exxon et al. leads me to be just a little skeptical when I read that stuff (citation).

Yes most are deluded amatures, I wonder where their delusions come from. Sourcewatch is your friend.

Why, why, that's an AD HOMINEM, that is!

It's totally irrelevant that almost every skeptic on this list is associated with a right wing think tank. And scientific credentials, pah, who needs them, I can refute global warming with simple high school physics!!1!

Well, of the 54 prominent skeptics on the record, only eight of them have any relevant scientific qualification: Tim Ball, Robert C Balling, Bill Gray, Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels, Garth Paltridge, Roy Spencer and Wolfgang Thune. So I guess they could fit in one New York Yankees box seat.

And your blind dismissal of anything based on the fact that it's posted on dKos makes you an irrational fool. Plain and simple.

Tell you what, genius. If you're afraid to visit dKos and fairly consider what's posted there, try these:

http://www.desmogblog.com/search/node/oregon%20petition

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

http://ezinearticles.com/?Debunking-the-Oregon-Petition-Project&id=1675285

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P8mlF8KT6I

Every one of the links above details what's wrong with the "petition". Or, if you lack the courage to visit anything that forces you to think, try the petition itself:

http://www.petitionproject.org/frequently_asked_questions.php

...where you can see 1) many of those on the petition are not scientists and 2) the petition mentions nothing about Al Gore.

I know, I know. Facts have a liberal bias. Sucks to be you.

Except those prosecutors were fired for refusing to do their job prosecuting voter fraud cases.

That article is from 2007, and seems to lack many details surrounding this case. I googled up this timeline ( http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_administration_U.S._attorney_firings_controversy ) that seems largely comprised of dates, direct quotes and similar facts. I see a very different story here. For example:

On March 26, 2007, Monica Goodling, the senior counselor to Gonzales and Department of Justice liaison to the White House who was on an "indefinite leave of absence," refused to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Goodling threatened to invoke her Fifth Amendment rights to not incriminate herself

Your quote implies the fired attorneys were dismissed for wrongdoing, but the facts do not appear to support that supposition.

Crap, didn't quite close off the footnoted references:
(1): http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute
(2): http://timothyblee.com/?p=1360

The Heartland Institute uses libertarian concepts, but from its start has been a front for wealthy conservative industrialists(1). As TFA describes the HI's report, it's the kind of libertarianism that is only concerned with limiting the power of the state, and is mute over injustices perpetrated by parties other than the state(2).

Mr. Bee is correct to note that although Stallman, et al, are not libertarians, the F/OSS community is in substance a real-life expression of a libertarian ideal. Market competition is a destroyer of marketable value, down to the logical zero. Profit arises from something monopolized, be it an idea, a process, or a thing... like the only gas station for the next 100 miles. F/OSS theoretically zeros out the marketability of software, but unlocks other kinds of value for the consumer.

Getting back to the HI report, Mr. Moglen claims not to like network neutrality based on the language of F/OSS evangelists. The fact is, his paymasters in telecom - in a federal move to make telecom competitive - did compete for a time, until they decided they'd rather enjoy the monopolist's profit by merging, than continue to the nirvana of its creative destruction.

What about Round Up ready Corn?! http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto_and_the_Roundup_Ready_Controversy

Nice selective quote, the sentance that precedes it was "...it's a political thing on both sides, the left have their 'truthers' and the right have their 'birthers' both as equally bat-shit crazy".

Presumably for your own political reasons you chose to ignore that and start into a rant about how the right are acting rationally and the left are bat-shit crazy. Then you go on to dissmiss Hansen because you don't trust him. That right there my friend is called arguing from authority and is no different to the creationist habit of calling people "Darwinists" in an effort to make the argument about choosing between God's authority and Darwin's authority (neither of which actually exist in any tangible form).

Besides, if Hansen is a liar and a cheat, how do you explain "alarmist" articles such as this one in Nature or this list of similar articles in Science, are they all part of the left-wing "cosensus" conspiracy? Do you really belive that they all respect Hansen because he is the second in command behind Gore in their conspiracy, or is it because your politics won't allow to consider that they might actually respect him because his predictions have been remarkably **accurate?

"...it is HONEST to disregard the word of someone who's been caught altering data to suit his conclusions time and again".

Yes, lying is dishonest, so why are you clinging on to your beliefs by inventing/repeating lies about Hansen? And why do lie to yourself by ignoring the mountain of data, observations, experiments, and predictions that do not suit your conclusions? Are you paid to make such "grassroot" comments? Or are you really gullible enough to fall for the anti-science conspiracy theories of less rationalright wing think tankslobbyists?

**A selction of Hansens accurate predictions, I belive the first four were made in his now famous 1988(?) testimony to the senate...
# - Cooling stratosphere. - observed by sattelite and used by (amoung others) Bob Carter to confuse people.
# - More warming over land and ice - observed
# - More warming over poles - observed, the phenomena is now known as Polar Amplification .
# - More warming in the winter - observed (IPCC 2007).
# - Rapid disintergration of Artic sea ice - observed (NSIDC,WMO,NOAA,ect).

You would think people who call themselves geeks would point out that Hansen made all those predictions using the much maligned computer models rather than poo-pooing the whole idea of models, as is often the case here on slashdot. I have argued with thousands of people like you over the last decade or so, over that time people with your opinion on AGW have shrunk dramatically due solely to the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

"look at a major problem in the medical world today."

Good idea!

I agree some drug companies attempt to abuse the scientific process even going to extremes such as publishing their own journals through front groups. They use the same disinformation methods as the tabacco industry uses for it's propoganda, which also happens to be identical to the disinformation methods that the fossil fuel companies are (successfully) using on you. If you were alive duri

One of ELF's favourtie tactics is driving metal spikes into trees so that when a logger tries to cut the tree down the chain on the chain saw breaks and injures the logger.

Burning AM towers alone may not people, but ELF has injured plenty of civilians in the past.

Sorry, but... [Citation Needed].

From Wikipedia:

Tree spiking is a form of sabotage which involves hammering a metal rod or other material (commonly ceramic) into a tree trunk in order to discourage logging. A metal saw blade hitting an embedded spike could break or shatter, making it uneconomic to fell those trees. Tree spiking is condemned by opponents as eco-terrorism as they claim it is potentially dangerous to loggers or mill-workers, although only one injury resulting from tree spiking has been recorded, occurring in a sawmill with poor safety practices.

From SourceWatch:

In advocating for the legitimacy of of tree spiking, Foreman claimed - naively, some might argue - that injury to workers was unlikely because of the safety measures in place to protect workers in large timber mills. Because of the "remote" risk of injury to chainsaw operators associated with spiking the base of trees, Foreman recommended against using this particular form of spiking.
Nonetheless, tree spiking was seized upon by the logging industry as evidence of a violent agenda behind radical environmentalism. In 1987, when an employee of logging company Louisiana-Pacific was seriously injured by a bandsaw blade which shattered when it struck a 60 penny nail, company president Harry Merlo dubbed the incident "terrorism in the name of environmental goals". While Earth First! was condemned by state officials and the media, it later emerged that the chief suspect, against whom no charges were laid, was a 50 year old "survivalist" with no connection to Earth First!

And you must have rocks in your head if you think that NewsBusters is a credible source. For christ's sake, their slogan is "Exposing Liberal Media Bias".

NewsBusters (a fox news favourite) is owned by Media Research Centre, a far-right group whose president Brent Bozell who, among other things, in 2004 accused John Kerry of lying in his testimony to the US Senate foreign relations committee in 1971 because he had depicted US soldiers in a bad light.

Media Research Centre has several far-right financial supporters, among them:
The Scaife Foundations - Director Richard Mellon Scaife whose fortune was built on the family's ownership of Gulf Oil Corp., Alcoa and Alcan.
John M. Olin Foundation - also funds Brookings, Project for the New American Century etc.
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation - another far right group which gives away about $30 million a year to neocon organisations.

PS. And there is a consensus. Here's yet another survey. Is 96.2% of climate science specialists good enough for you?

And you must have rocks in your head if you think that NewsBusters is a credible source. For christ's sake, their slogan is "Exposing Liberal Media Bias".

NewsBusters (a fox news favourite) is owned by Media Research Centre, a far-right group whose president Brent Bozell who, among other things, in 2004 accused John Kerry of lying in his testimony to the US Senate foreign relations committee in 1971 because he had depicted US soldiers in a bad light.

Media Research Centre has several far-right financial supporters, among them:
The Scaife Foundations - Director Richard Mellon Scaife whose fortune was built on the family's ownership of Gulf Oil Corp., Alcoa and Alcan.
John M. Olin Foundation - also funds Brookings, Project for the New American Century etc.
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation - another far right group which gives away about $30 million a year to neocon organisations.

PS. And there is a consensus. Here's yet another survey. Is 96.2% of climate science specialists good enough for you?

And you must have rocks in your head if you think that NewsBusters is a credible source. For christ's sake, their slogan is "Exposing Liberal Media Bias".

NewsBusters (a fox news favourite) is owned by Media Research Centre, a far-right group whose president Brent Bozell who, among other things, in 2004 accused John Kerry of lying in his testimony to the US Senate foreign relations committee in 1971 because he had depicted US soldiers in a bad light.

Media Research Centre has several far-right financial supporters, among them:
The Scaife Foundations - Director Richard Mellon Scaife whose fortune was built on the family's ownership of Gulf Oil Corp., Alcoa and Alcan.
John M. Olin Foundation - also funds Brookings, Project for the New American Century etc.
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation - another far right group which gives away about $30 million a year to neocon organisations.

PS. And there is a consensus. Here's yet another survey. Is 96.2% of climate science specialists good enough for you?

And you must have rocks in your head if you think that NewsBusters is a credible source. For christ's sake, their slogan is "Exposing Liberal Media Bias".

NewsBusters (a fox news favourite) is owned by Media Research Centre, a far-right group whose president Brent Bozell who, among other things, in 2004 accused John Kerry of lying in his testimony to the US Senate foreign relations committee in 1971 because he had depicted US soldiers in a bad light.

Media Research Centre has several far-right financial supporters, among them:
The Scaife Foundations - Director Richard Mellon Scaife whose fortune was built on the family's ownership of Gulf Oil Corp., Alcoa and Alcan.
John M. Olin Foundation - also funds Brookings, Project for the New American Century etc.
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation - another far right group which gives away about $30 million a year to neocon organisations.

PS. And there is a consensus. Here's yet another survey. Is 96.2% of climate science specialists good enough for you?

And you must have rocks in your head if you think that NewsBusters is a credible source. For christ's sake, their slogan is "Exposing Liberal Media Bias".

NewsBusters (a fox news favourite) is owned by Media Research Centre, a far-right group whose president Brent Bozell who, among other things, in 2004 accused John Kerry of lying in his testimony to the US Senate foreign relations committee in 1971 because he had depicted US soldiers in a bad light.

Media Research Centre has several far-right financial supporters, among them:
The Scaife Foundations - Director Richard Mellon Scaife whose fortune was built on the family's ownership of Gulf Oil Corp., Alcoa and Alcan.
John M. Olin Foundation - also funds Brookings, Project for the New American Century etc.
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation - another far right group which gives away about $30 million a year to neocon organisations.

PS. And there is a consensus. Here's yet another survey. Is 96.2% of climate science specialists good enough for you?

And you must have rocks in your head if you think that NewsBusters is a credible source. For christ's sake, their slogan is "Exposing Liberal Media Bias".

NewsBusters (a fox news favourite) is owned by Media Research Centre, a far-right group whose president Brent Bozell who, among other things, in 2004 accused John Kerry of lying in his testimony to the US Senate foreign relations committee in 1971 because he had depicted US soldiers in a bad light.

Media Research Centre has several far-right financial supporters, among them:
The Scaife Foundations - Director Richard Mellon Scaife whose fortune was built on the family's ownership of Gulf Oil Corp., Alcoa and Alcan.
John M. Olin Foundation - also funds Brookings, Project for the New American Century etc.
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation - another far right group which gives away about $30 million a year to neocon organisations.

PS. And there is a consensus. Here's yet another survey. Is 96.2% of climate science specialists good enough for you?

Once again we see an over simplification. Why are those who don't believe GW is caused by man referred to as not thinking it's real? They're not the same. I can accept that global temperatures are rising without being convinced that a) it's mankind's fault and b) we have to throw money at it.

We can distinguish trend skeptics (who deny there is global warming), the
attribution sceptics (who accept the global warming trend but see natural causes for this), and the impact sceptics (who think global warming is harmless or even beneficial).

Rebuttal (of attribution skepticism)
John Cook, on his website Skeptical Science, states that "the usual suspects in natural climate change -- solar variations, volcanoes, Milankovitch cycles -- are all conspicuous in their absence over the past three decades of warming. This doesn't mean by itself that carbon dioxide is the main cause of current global warming...but the primary causes of commonly cited climate change in the past have played little part in the current warming trend...Empirical observations show that carbon dioxide has a warming effect as a greenhouse gas, it is increasing in the atmosphere and the expected warming is occurring. Any alternative theory that found a different cause of global warming would also need to explain why the expected (and observed) warming from carbon dioxide has not eventuated."

Looks to me that Dell is accusing them of greenwashing, GP are buying it, I can't be bothered digging to see if there is any truth to it, there are bigger fish to fry.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute

Good for a start...

But you need to understand what George Taylor's job was. His job was not a purely academic one. His job was to help advise the governor of Oregon on climate related issues effecting the state, and indirectly to help set climate policy in Oregon State. His disbelief in Global Warming made it impossible for him to act as a trusted advisor to the governor in that context.

From what I can find, Mr. Taylor seems to have retired, but he doesn't seem to be spending all his time fishing... He was a speaker at a anti-global-warming conference in New York this year. For some reason, I doubt that his appearance was pro bono. Also note (at the same link above) that the book that Taylor wrote arguing against global warming was funded by a publishing house funded in part by ExxonMobil.

Why is a belief in global warming required to be an adviser on the climate? Is belief in the accepted religion required to say that pollution is bad? Must you be a true believer before you can say that perhaps clean water is good? What you're really saying here is that the heretic must be driven out of the halls of power. Period.

But you need to understand what George Taylor's job was. His job was not a purely academic one. His job was to help advise the governor of Oregon on climate related issues effecting the state, and indirectly to help set climate policy in Oregon State. His disbelief in Global Warming made it impossible for him to act as a trusted advisor to the governor in that context.

From what I can find, Mr. Taylor seems to have retired, but he doesn't seem to be spending all his time fishing... He was a speaker at a anti-global-warming conference in New York this year. For some reason, I doubt that his appearance was pro bono. Also note (at the same link above) that the book that Taylor wrote arguing against global warming was funded by a publishing house funded in part by ExxonMobil.

The amount spent by Environmental groups on this issue dwarfs that spent by fossil fuel lobbyists.

[Citation needed]

See
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts

"Watts was a speaker at the International Conference on Climate Change (2009) organized by the Heartland Institute think tank. Watts is also listed as a speaker for the Heartland Institute's June 2009 Third International Conference on Climate Change."

Nice gigs. Wonder whether he was given a nice hotel for that...

Or Lindzen:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen

"He is one of the leading global warming skeptics and is a member of the Science, Health, and Economic Advisory Council, of the Annapolis Center, a Maryland-based think tank which has been funded by corporations including ExxonMobil."

Ah, the joys of being in a quango!

Roy Spencer?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Roy_Spencer

"Since February 2004 he has been a columnist for TCS Daily writing over forty columns, almost entirely on the the topic of global warming. Until 2006, TCS Daily was run by DCI Group, a lobbying firm that works for ExxonMobil."

Plimer?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ian_Plimer

"He is a global warming sceptic and a non-executive director of three mining companies: Ivanhoe Australia, a subsidiary of Bob Friedland's Ivanhoe Mines, as well as CBH Resources and Kefi Minerals."

How about McIntyre:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Stephen_McIntyre

"Stephen McIntyre has worked in mineral exploration for 30 years, much of that time as an officer or director of several public mineral exploration companies. McIntyre is also a headliner at the International Conference on Climate Change (2009), a gathering of climate change skeptics in New York from March 8th-10th. "

(remember that ICCC is funded by the Heartland Institute).

McKitrick:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ross_McKitrick

"Ross McKitrick is an Associate Professor in the Economics Department at the University of Guelph, Ontario, and, since October 2002, has been a Senior Fellow at the Fraser Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Vancouver, British Columbia"

"For example in late 1999 defended the Fraser Institute when it criticised proposals for an Endangered Species Act in Canada. "

All on the oil-based gravy train!

See
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts

"Watts was a speaker at the International Conference on Climate Change (2009) organized by the Heartland Institute think tank. Watts is also listed as a speaker for the Heartland Institute's June 2009 Third International Conference on Climate Change."

Nice gigs. Wonder whether he was given a nice hotel for that...

Or Lindzen:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen

"He is one of the leading global warming skeptics and is a member of the Science, Health, and Economic Advisory Council, of the Annapolis Center, a Maryland-based think tank which has been funded by corporations including ExxonMobil."

Ah, the joys of being in a quango!

Roy Spencer?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Roy_Spencer

"Since February 2004 he has been a columnist for TCS Daily writing over forty columns, almost entirely on the the topic of global warming. Until 2006, TCS Daily was run by DCI Group, a lobbying firm that works for ExxonMobil."

Plimer?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ian_Plimer

"He is a global warming sceptic and a non-executive director of three mining companies: Ivanhoe Australia, a subsidiary of Bob Friedland's Ivanhoe Mines, as well as CBH Resources and Kefi Minerals."

How about McIntyre:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Stephen_McIntyre

"Stephen McIntyre has worked in mineral exploration for 30 years, much of that time as an officer or director of several public mineral exploration companies. McIntyre is also a headliner at the International Conference on Climate Change (2009), a gathering of climate change skeptics in New York from March 8th-10th. "

(remember that ICCC is funded by the Heartland Institute).

McKitrick:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ross_McKitrick

"Ross McKitrick is an Associate Professor in the Economics Department at the University of Guelph, Ontario, and, since October 2002, has been a Senior Fellow at the Fraser Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Vancouver, British Columbia"

"For example in late 1999 defended the Fraser Institute when it criticised proposals for an Endangered Species Act in Canada. "

All on the oil-based gravy train!

See
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts

"Watts was a speaker at the International Conference on Climate Change (2009) organized by the Heartland Institute think tank. Watts is also listed as a speaker for the Heartland Institute's June 2009 Third International Conference on Climate Change."

Nice gigs. Wonder whether he was given a nice hotel for that...

Or Lindzen:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen

"He is one of the leading global warming skeptics and is a member of the Science, Health, and Economic Advisory Council, of the Annapolis Center, a Maryland-based think tank which has been funded by corporations including ExxonMobil."

Ah, the joys of being in a quango!

Roy Spencer?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Roy_Spencer

"Since February 2004 he has been a columnist for TCS Daily writing over forty columns, almost entirely on the the topic of global warming. Until 2006, TCS Daily was run by DCI Group, a lobbying firm that works for ExxonMobil."

Plimer?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ian_Plimer

"He is a global warming sceptic and a non-executive director of three mining companies: Ivanhoe Australia, a subsidiary of Bob Friedland's Ivanhoe Mines, as well as CBH Resources and Kefi Minerals."

How about McIntyre:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Stephen_McIntyre

"Stephen McIntyre has worked in mineral exploration for 30 years, much of that time as an officer or director of several public mineral exploration companies. McIntyre is also a headliner at the International Conference on Climate Change (2009), a gathering of climate change skeptics in New York from March 8th-10th. "

(remember that ICCC is funded by the Heartland Institute).

McKitrick:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ross_McKitrick

"Ross McKitrick is an Associate Professor in the Economics Department at the University of Guelph, Ontario, and, since October 2002, has been a Senior Fellow at the Fraser Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Vancouver, British Columbia"

"For example in late 1999 defended the Fraser Institute when it criticised proposals for an Endangered Species Act in Canada. "

All on the oil-based gravy train!

See
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts

"Watts was a speaker at the International Conference on Climate Change (2009) organized by the Heartland Institute think tank. Watts is also listed as a speaker for the Heartland Institute's June 2009 Third International Conference on Climate Change."

Nice gigs. Wonder whether he was given a nice hotel for that...

Or Lindzen:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen

"He is one of the leading global warming skeptics and is a member of the Science, Health, and Economic Advisory Council, of the Annapolis Center, a Maryland-based think tank which has been funded by corporations including ExxonMobil."

Ah, the joys of being in a quango!

Roy Spencer?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Roy_Spencer

"Since February 2004 he has been a columnist for TCS Daily writing over forty columns, almost entirely on the the topic of global warming. Until 2006, TCS Daily was run by DCI Group, a lobbying firm that works for ExxonMobil."

Plimer?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ian_Plimer

"He is a global warming sceptic and a non-executive director of three mining companies: Ivanhoe Australia, a subsidiary of Bob Friedland's Ivanhoe Mines, as well as CBH Resources and Kefi Minerals."

How about McIntyre:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Stephen_McIntyre

"Stephen McIntyre has worked in mineral exploration for 30 years, much of that time as an officer or director of several public mineral exploration companies. McIntyre is also a headliner at the International Conference on Climate Change (2009), a gathering of climate change skeptics in New York from March 8th-10th. "

(remember that ICCC is funded by the Heartland Institute).

McKitrick:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ross_McKitrick

"Ross McKitrick is an Associate Professor in the Economics Department at the University of Guelph, Ontario, and, since October 2002, has been a Senior Fellow at the Fraser Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Vancouver, British Columbia"

"For example in late 1999 defended the Fraser Institute when it criticised proposals for an Endangered Species Act in Canada. "

All on the oil-based gravy train!

See
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts

"Watts was a speaker at the International Conference on Climate Change (2009) organized by the Heartland Institute think tank. Watts is also listed as a speaker for the Heartland Institute's June 2009 Third International Conference on Climate Change."

Nice gigs. Wonder whether he was given a nice hotel for that...

Or Lindzen:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen

"He is one of the leading global warming skeptics and is a member of the Science, Health, and Economic Advisory Council, of the Annapolis Center, a Maryland-based think tank which has been funded by corporations including ExxonMobil."

Ah, the joys of being in a quango!

Roy Spencer?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Roy_Spencer

"Since February 2004 he has been a columnist for TCS Daily writing over forty columns, almost entirely on the the topic of global warming. Until 2006, TCS Daily was run by DCI Group, a lobbying firm that works for ExxonMobil."

Plimer?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ian_Plimer

"He is a global warming sceptic and a non-executive director of three mining companies: Ivanhoe Australia, a subsidiary of Bob Friedland's Ivanhoe Mines, as well as CBH Resources and Kefi Minerals."

How about McIntyre:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Stephen_McIntyre

"Stephen McIntyre has worked in mineral exploration for 30 years, much of that time as an officer or director of several public mineral exploration companies. McIntyre is also a headliner at the International Conference on Climate Change (2009), a gathering of climate change skeptics in New York from March 8th-10th. "

(remember that ICCC is funded by the Heartland Institute).

McKitrick:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ross_McKitrick

"Ross McKitrick is an Associate Professor in the Economics Department at the University of Guelph, Ontario, and, since October 2002, has been a Senior Fellow at the Fraser Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Vancouver, British Columbia"

"For example in late 1999 defended the Fraser Institute when it criticised proposals for an Endangered Species Act in Canada. "

All on the oil-based gravy train!

See
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts

"Watts was a speaker at the International Conference on Climate Change (2009) organized by the Heartland Institute think tank. Watts is also listed as a speaker for the Heartland Institute's June 2009 Third International Conference on Climate Change."

Nice gigs. Wonder whether he was given a nice hotel for that...

Or Lindzen:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen

"He is one of the leading global warming skeptics and is a member of the Science, Health, and Economic Advisory Council, of the Annapolis Center, a Maryland-based think tank which has been funded by corporations including ExxonMobil."

Ah, the joys of being in a quango!

Roy Spencer?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Roy_Spencer

"Since February 2004 he has been a columnist for TCS Daily writing over forty columns, almost entirely on the the topic of global warming. Until 2006, TCS Daily was run by DCI Group, a lobbying firm that works for ExxonMobil."

Plimer?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ian_Plimer

"He is a global warming sceptic and a non-executive director of three mining companies: Ivanhoe Australia, a subsidiary of Bob Friedland's Ivanhoe Mines, as well as CBH Resources and Kefi Minerals."

How about McIntyre:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Stephen_McIntyre

"Stephen McIntyre has worked in mineral exploration for 30 years, much of that time as an officer or director of several public mineral exploration companies. McIntyre is also a headliner at the International Conference on Climate Change (2009), a gathering of climate change skeptics in New York from March 8th-10th. "

(remember that ICCC is funded by the Heartland Institute).

McKitrick:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ross_McKitrick

"Ross McKitrick is an Associate Professor in the Economics Department at the University of Guelph, Ontario, and, since October 2002, has been a Senior Fellow at the Fraser Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Vancouver, British Columbia"

"For example in late 1999 defended the Fraser Institute when it criticised proposals for an Endangered Species Act in Canada. "

All on the oil-based gravy train!

Your post is typical of a significant minority of slashdotters who are being mislead by a looby group that make the MAFIAA look like amatures, the urban ledgends you are repeating in your post were created by the heartland institute who are associated with the CEI and other anti-science front groups via the Cooler heads coalition.

Their associated web sites are too numerous to list but two of them that are quoted with depressing regularity on slashdot are icecap (owned and operated by HI) and WUWT, (Watts is a regular attraction at the HI's "climate confrences").

Your post is typical of a significant minority of slashdotters who are being mislead by a looby group that make the MAFIAA look like amatures, the urban ledgends you are repeating in your post were created by the heartland institute who are associated with the CEI and other anti-science front groups via the Cooler heads coalition.

Their associated web sites are too numerous to list but two of them that are quoted with depressing regularity on slashdot are icecap (owned and operated by HI) and WUWT, (Watts is a regular attraction at the HI's "climate confrences").

You mean the commercial entities with a revenue stream to protect are funding lobby groups to manipulate public opinion and corrupt the political process?
I'm shocked! Shocked I tell ya!

Well, OK. I'm not that shocked. In fact I'm pretty sure this has happened before.
Exxon is pretty good at this sort of thing:-
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/01/exxon-mobil-climate-change-sceptics-funding

And groups like the Heartland Institute ( http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute ) are whoring for so many masters I fully expect to see them expand into the "intellectual property" debate any day now.

Its pretty important for citizens to hone their bullshit detectors to try and figure out when they are the target of a snow job.
Here are a few tools I use to pretty good effect when employing my bullshit detector:

"Who benefits" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cui_bono
"You can't get something for nothing" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_law
"The simpler theory is often correct" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occams_razor
( be careful with that last one - it can be a slippery sucker)

The same thing happens here in the US. FreedomWorks is a front group for Political Insiders. The scary part of is that people that have joined this organzation have no idea they are apart of a front group.

Whilst it's not directly relevant to the decision in quashing the report it's interesting to look at who is pushing this. The file is hosted at by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an right-wing think tank who "seeks to overturn government regulations that the CEI regards as inappropriate, such as regulations pertaining to drug safety, rent control, and automobile fuel efficiency" See info at http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Competitive_Enterprise_Institute

They get significant corporation funding, including from the likes of Texaco.

However, I suspect that the reality of this is that the EPA commissioned a report under the previous government and chose someone who would give them the line the White house wanted, then with the change of President they cancelled it. It's politics. Don't let that stop any conspiracy theories though.

Most of these reports are poor, whether they support your point of view or not. They are intended to take a large body of primary material understandable only by experts and make it easy for politicians to get ideas from. Usually this results in an unacceptable simplification of that primary material.

Oh, there you go again! I am so scared of a little corporate funding. Corporations have spent millions on "climate change" while our government spends BILLIONS each year promoting their unholy scam.

The main problem with this site and everyone willing to give their soul to reduce that mitochondrial poison CO2 is everyone's opinion that doesn't agree with yours is CONSPIRATORIAL CRAP.

Most posters here only have enough intelligence to go right for the throat with a cheap, lowlife personal attack on any position that doesn't match theirs. A million screaming parrots with a one cylinder nanobrain--GO FOR IT EINSTEIN WANNABEES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All the people hurt by big corporations all over the world would like to disagree, like the people in Bhopal. I'm sure you can think of a long list of big and small disasters brought on by corporate greed, corruption or incompetence. You can't simply blame the victims for not knowing they were being lied to, especially no when corporations spend billions to convince them the lies are true. When they're not providing good, truthful information to base your acceptance or rejection on, corporations can ruin your life just as well as any state bureacrat.

As for climate change, there are such corporations such as Exxon that are well-known to spread information that isn't helping anyone to take or leave their products.

It's customary to quote the source when cutting and pasting but I'll bite and match your cut and paste about Idso with my own:

In October 1999 Craig D. Idso and Keith E. Idso mentioned that they had "recently completed a project commissioned by the Greening Earth Society entitled "Forecasting World Food Supplies: The Impact of the Rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentration," which we presented at the Second Annual Dixy Lee Ray Memorial Symposium held in Washington, DC on 31 August - 2 September 1999." [1] The Greening Earth Society, [is] a front group of the Western Fuels Association. Donald Paul Hodel, chairman of Summit Power Group is listed among the "scientific advisors" to the Center.[2] - sourcewatch.

Or I could just google his name along with the CEI ( the organisation pushing their psuedo-scientific report in TFA ) and find that he collarborates with them through yet another well known anti-science think tank called the "Cooler Heads Coalition".

"[Hansen is]considered by many to be perhaps the world's foremost authority on the 'greenhouse effect' of anthropogenic CO2 emissions" - At least you got that right.

Interesting that the research he quotes to make his point is funded by those groups who stand to lose the most if global warming legislation is passed.

Let's look at who some of the people who fund icecap.us are:

Robert C. Balling Jr - Balling has acknowledged receiving $408,000 in research funding from the fossil fuel industry over the last decade (of which his University takes 50% for overhead). Contributors include ExxonMobil, the British Coal Corporation, Cyprus Minerals and OPEC.

Sallie Baliunas - Between December 1998 and September 2001 she was listed as a "Scientific Adviser" to the Greening Earth Society, a group that was funded and controlled by the Western Fuels Association (WFA), an association of coal-burning utility companies. WFA founded the group in 1997, according to an archived version of it website, "as a vehicle for advocacy on climate change, the environmental impact of CO2, and fossil fuel use."

Robert M. Carter - Sits on the advisory board of the Institute of Public Affairs which is funded by the mining and tobacco industry along with Monsanto. 'I don't think it is the point whether or not you are paid by the coal or petroleum industry,' said Professor Carter.

The EPA is doing its duty by choosing to ignore junk science funded by the coal and oil lobbies.

Interesting that the research he quotes to make his point is funded by those groups who stand to lose the most if global warming legislation is passed.

Let's look at who some of the people who fund icecap.us are:

Robert C. Balling Jr - Balling has acknowledged receiving $408,000 in research funding from the fossil fuel industry over the last decade (of which his University takes 50% for overhead). Contributors include ExxonMobil, the British Coal Corporation, Cyprus Minerals and OPEC.

Sallie Baliunas - Between December 1998 and September 2001 she was listed as a "Scientific Adviser" to the Greening Earth Society, a group that was funded and controlled by the Western Fuels Association (WFA), an association of coal-burning utility companies. WFA founded the group in 1997, according to an archived version of it website, "as a vehicle for advocacy on climate change, the environmental impact of CO2, and fossil fuel use."

Robert M. Carter - Sits on the advisory board of the Institute of Public Affairs which is funded by the mining and tobacco industry along with Monsanto. 'I don't think it is the point whether or not you are paid by the coal or petroleum industry,' said Professor Carter.

The EPA is doing its duty by choosing to ignore junk science funded by the coal and oil lobbies.

Whilst it's not directly relevant to the decision in quashing the report it's interesting to look at who is pushing this. The file is hosted at by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an right-wing think tank who "seeks to overturn government regulations that the CEI regards as inappropriate, such as regulations pertaining to drug safety, rent control, and automobile fuel efficiency" See info at http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Competitive_Enterprise_Institute

They get significant corporation funding, including from the likes of Texaco.

However, I suspect that the reality of this is that the EPA commissioned a report under the previous government and chose someone who would give them the line the White house wanted, then with the change of President they cancelled it. It's politics. Don't let that stop any conspiracy theories though.

Most of these reports are poor, whether they support your point of view or not. They are intended to take a large body of primary material understandable only by experts and make it easy for politicians to get ideas from. Usually this results in an unacceptable simplification of that primary material.

First I'll say that violence is 100% uncalled for, but I wouldn't doubt if the U.S. government is using the private but publicly funded "Endowment for Democracy" to interfere with Iran's election to help bring about the regime change the neo-cons have been gunning for, for a decade now. Imagine if it was found out that Chinese agents were interfering with our governance wouldn't that piss you off?

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Endowment_for_Democracy

http://www.iefd.org/articles/trojan_horse.php

I can't prove this is happening of course but it would very consistent with previous covert U.S. interventions in other countries like Guatemala, Iran, Iraq, etc. My gut feeling is, is that is awfully perfectly timed and heavily pushed by the MSM to be a 100% spontaneous uprising. Again I could be wrong, but I have a feeling that there is more going on here than we are been told about.

What scares me is that an increasingly hawkish foreign policy will probably get almost no domestic opposition in the U.S. as neo-con Republicans are already behind it, and many naive "liberal" do gooder type won't question ANYTHING done by Obama (who I voted for BTW, mistake). Now more than ever it's time for Ron Paul authentic conservatives and lefty activists like myself to share notes IMO as the "center" gets increasingly imperialistic and bloodthirsty.

Go ahead and flame me and mod me down, I've got karma to burn, shrug