Slashdot Mirror
Leaked Heartland Institute Documents Reveal Opposition To Science
New submitter bheerssen writes with an excerpt from an article by The Bad Astronomer: "The Heartland Institute — a self-described 'think tank' that actually serves in part as a way for climate change denialism to get funded — has a potentially embarrassing situation on their hands. Someone going by the handle 'Heartland Insider' has anonymously released quite a few of what are claimed to be internal documents from Heartland, revealing the Institute's strategies, funds, and much more."
At least one site has the documents in question.
Principals and teachers are heavily biased toward the alarmist perspective. To counter this we are considering launching an effort to develop alternative materials for K-12 classrooms. We are pursuing a proposal from Dr. David Wojick to produce a global warming curriculum for K-12 schools. Dr. Wojick is a consultant with the office of Scientific and Technical Information at the U.S. Department of Energy in the area of information and communication science. His effort will focus on providing a curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain--two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science. We tentatively plan to pay Dr. Wojick $100,000 for 20 modules in 2012, with funding pledged by the Anonymous Donor.
Wow, they didn't even bother to put the "science" in quotation marks. Guess they *really* never thought these documents would get out. Pretty dumb to use that kind of language, even in purely internal communications. About all they can say at this point is that it was a poorly-proofed typo (that they *meant* to say "bad science" or something). But even that would qualify as a Freudian slip of the fingers, methinks.
Even creepier is the way they capitalize "the Anonymous Donor." Makes me think of a guy petting a cat in a secret island compound somewhere.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Nothing to see here. Move along...
Cue the climate change denials in 3...2...1...
Palm trees and 8
The big argument about this being a "smoking gun" is one sentence, where someone typed "dissuading teachers from teaching science" instead of "dissuading teachers from teaching this lousy excuse for a science?"
Pretty weak stuff, overall.
On the other hand, the entire Heartland anti-AGW fund is smaller than the one bribe, er, "grant" paid to one NASA administrator, and a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the various government pro-AGW propaganda expenditures.
Or, rather, "hiding the rise"?
They could try the old Scientology "These documents are copyrighted!" tact to stop people from posting them. But that presumes they've never heard of the Streisand Effect, and are stupid as hell.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Which means we should expect to see something along those lines...
We should only pray (ha!) that they will be that stupid.
We've all known these groups were anti-science. While seeing it spelled out on paper is amusing, and satisfying, I doubt that very many minds are going to be changed by this information. The people that populate and fund these groups ignore anything and everything that conflicts with their ideas as it is.
These people are used to the extreme mental acrobatics necessary to deny the reality right in front of them. This will be written off as "liberal lies and smear tactics" pretty much immediately. It's not so much that they believe the crap these groups spew, a lot of people simply take the opposite stance of their political opponents regardless. Since climate change is a "liberal" thing, it's all a lie, because all "liberals" are liars.
Still, like I said, it's nice to see what we've all already suspected confirmed in writing. These guys are in the same league as Big Tobacco with their bullshit.
Just to point out that the real incriminating evidence comes from the "2012 Climate Strategy" document that could be falsified. The other documents, like the budget, look pretty legit but the document you are citing is a page and a half. Wouldn't take much for me, someone who is ultra opposed to the Heartland Institute, to dream that up in a short afternoon with a six pack. I'm poking through the rest of them and am not finding the same sort of evidence. So it's possible that someone could have gotten their hands on a few legit documents (like the budget) and created this one and added it to the group. The metadata on the meeting agendas and such read "jbast" while the metadata on the climate strategy document reads "Joseph Bast." Entirely possible they were created two different ways but then why does the climate strategy document appear photoscanned? Is he photoscanning his own internal documents? Why? Or did someone want this to look legit, photoscan it and then write "Joseph Bast" as the author to make it look authentic?
I'm just pleading for people to exercise caution. I think that the best approach for this is to put forth questions towards Dr. Wojick about his funding and move forward with caution. This is the internet. This is an area where I require a lot of verification before I believe something. The climate strategy document is awful convenient and as someone who's use to corporate bullshit, I can tell you my manager could easily produce a 15 page document on our team's "vision" and "mission statements" or "strategy." Mostly to prove he's worth something but also because that just seems to be how they roll. Two pages can be made up and I would imagine the real thing would have a lot more fluff and a lot more boring in it. I'm not saying this document is a fake, I'm just urging everyone to exercise caution before you look like a rube.
My work here is dung.
Better to have your population ignorant, fearful and easily alarmed. Not only are they easily controlled, but pseudo-science is big business in this country. I wonder if their end goal is a fascist state, or if they're simply trying to preserve their economic advantage.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
How did science get from this definition:
The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
... to the bastardized meaning used in the American media?
What happened America? You used to be cool.
I used to butt heads with Jim Lakely on a small, multi-author politically slanted blog he contributed to. I was friends with him briefly on FB, but I couldn't take his near constant right-wing/libertarian rantings. By all accounts he's an intelligent guy, but he has some of the craziest ideas. He's a really good fit for that organization. When he got that job, the action at the blog dried up, which was unfortunate. I had a lot of fun debating there, as one of only about 3 active left-leaners.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
Curious, but of little interest absent non-ideological analysis. So far the only alleged issue is a single sentence, and any charges related to it would need corroborating actions or statements to back it up. Discover Magazine uses the sentence to deflect attention away from Climategate, while Mr. Littlemore uses an ineffective guilt by association logical fallacy to smear Heartland. If the documents are legitimate, then I'll just wait until a serious, non-sensationalist source of analysis without an ax to grind (or can keep it sheathed for the duration) gets around to it. That would be the scientific way to process it.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
Interesting stuff. I think blind opposition to fact is bad, but honestly, a lot of what's taken as science these days is just theory anyway. Science fact should be based on fact, and theory should be open to different perspectives - which it often isn't.
Our society seems to use "think of the children" to justify just about everything... except when, you know, children actually need to be protected. Children aren't equipped to rationally weigh the validity of information presented to them by teachers. This is why the majority of children who are educated in a closed society under repressive Sharia Law believe that law to be rational and just. Of course, that is hardly the only religious example, and religion doesn't monopolize the practice. Rewriting the history taught to children has occurred throughout the history of human civilization, and has happened in every region of the world.
I am simply exhausted with the control that special interest groups have over politicians of all parties. I can't help but wonder what the amount of money used to influence politics at all levels could accomplish if directed toward more useful enterprises. Politicians do have a duty to consider the health of corporations (like those funding the waste of space that is the Heartland Institute), but they REPRESENT PEOPLE. As impossible as this is, I truly wish that only individuals could contribute to candidates (with very low monetary limits, as well).
Whatever the era or style of government, courtiers (lobbyists) have always represented one of the greatest threats to the common interest of the people.
...people spending 6.5 million to defend science, while a handful of warmist organizations have budgets of nearly 500 million?
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/02/with-tiny-budgets-like-310-million-100.html
C'mon, guys, if you're going to say that money is a corrupting influence here, *follow the money*.
Anybody able to find any internal clues to show that this info is real and not faked? It looks right, but I can't find any proof that this isn't a hoax.
Clearly this is the doing of evil hackers blowing up vans and stealing emails.
Close your curtains and get a vicious attack dog.
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2012/02/2011-global-sea-level-dropped-back-to-2008-levels/
2011 was an interesting year for the Earth’s oceans. The relative sea level (RSL) in 2011 was not only lower than 2010, it was also lower than 2009. All of the different satellite measurements agree with that, but perhaps even more interesting is that the European RSL measurement shows that the sea level in 2011 was even lower than it was back in 2005. That particular satellite shows that there has been almost no net change in the Earth’s sea level over the past 8 years.
All of the different measurements agree that the rate that the sea level is rising is not increasing. All of them show a steady decrease in the rate of sea level rise. This is the opposite of what the predictions were a decade ago for global warming. Of course such predictions are full of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) that is so typical of global warming articles, these include statements that 100 million people will be displaced soon because of sea level rise.
Now that the institute has lost the battle it was paid to fight, I mean that completely aligned with it's ideology, over the health risks of second hand smoke; it can now join in over the prevailing nonsense about AGW.
this is red hands evidence of private interests brainwashing people, and doing it through private whores who pose as 'science' institutions.
if you undermine and rationalize the impact of this, you serve their interests and justify them.
Read radical news here
Just take some time at http://news.heartland.org/energy-and-environment?page=2 , they have a well defined agenda.
The funny thing is these guys were chortling mightily at the release of the "Climategate" emails a couple of years ago.
Is this Alanis Morissette-ironic, or actual-ironic?
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
I could not have described the Global Warming Alarmists and the Democrat Party 's position any better! Very insightful.
What's the big deal? One easily spun sentence in a memo from a so-called "right-wing think tank"? And this is somehow more convincing than all the demonstrable factual errors which Al Gore trumpeted in his propaganda movies?
Better to have your population ignorant, fearful and easily alarmed. Not only are they easily controlled, but pseudo-science is big business in this country. I wonder if their end goal is a fascist state, or if they're simply trying to preserve their economic advantage.
Given that one of their stated goals is to rein in the alarmism about man-made climate change and offer their own explanations, my guess is their end goal is to give the population more information so they aren't afraid and easily alarmed.
Apparently, in the distant past, TV announcers in the USA would use the phrase "Film at 11" to mean that the film that was normally on at 10pm, after the 9pm news, would be an hour later tonight, as momentous events required an extra hour of news coverage. Hence the non-sarcastic use of "Film at 11" to mean "That's big news" and the sarcastic use meaning "That is not really news at all."
So far the only alleged issue is a single sentence
No, there is more in the article. E.g.: This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out.
I wonder if their end goal is a fascist state, or if they're simply trying to preserve their economic advantage.
I'm sure they are simply a business making a living doing the bidding of whoever pays. You know. Like members of congress. I think it was Sam Houston that said in a letter to D.C., "Find me someone willing to clean up the streets and I'll find you someone willing to sell horse shit."
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
As a Brit reading this, I see it as deliberately trying to diminishing the capability of the US work force. How many great accomplishments would have been impossible if it were not for your nations commitment to science. To be able take the sum of the worlds knowledge and put a man on the moon is wonderful. China (or any other industrial nation) isn't going to put itself back into the dark ages and I'm sure they'll be happy to take advantage and will continue to invest in as much science as they can. /rant over.
So regardless of religion, at some point (or at what point does) the doctrine have a detrimental effect to a nation and become Anti-american or unpatriotic ?
I really hope British cynicism will keep such topics confined to awful daytime TV discussion shows and not in the real world.
Climate science indicates that the world is warming. Whether the globe is warming to human activity or excess flatulation from aardvarks is immaterial.
The best models indicate that the trend will continue. The best theoretic models predict that this will cause the polar ice caps to change: some cause it to melt, others to increase in size. Both outcomes are dire, massive increase in ocean levels resulting in New York becoming New Venice or a mile thick wall of ice rolling down over the Northern Hemisphere.
I'm a software engineer. I don't pretend to understand climatology, however I do know how to manage risk. When the evidence is pointing to a potential disaster, be it projects running late, major requirements being added at the last minute or something akin to the end of the world as we know it, I don't waste time with the "finger of blame". I ask, how do we mitigate the issue?
Since we don't know the root cause (or if there is even a single root cause), lets take action on all fronts and use this as an opportunity to make our lifestyles more sustainable and less impactful on the planet. Legislate lower vehicular emissions and mass transit use. Use incentives to get people to cycle or walk. Require companies to institute work-from-home plans. Slap taxes on pollution from industries to force them to reduce their emissions. Bar import of goods from countries that don't adhere to the global standard. Humans (and the companies they run) are adaptable, they'll find other work.
If we're wrong and global warming isn't actually happening, at least we'll have some positive outcomes. If we're right, maybe we can prevent a total catastrophe. Inaction, garners little or no benefit if human-caused GW isn't actually occurring, but will be a direct contributor to disaster if it is.
The Canadian fishing industry is a good example. Those folks who lost their jobs are hurting, but they are alive and there is some chance that the fishing will reopen. If GW is real, millions if not billions will die from starvation, be displaced into refugee camps as their towns are flooded or be impacted by regional conflicts as countries struggle to deal with the changing climate.
It seems to me that it does. But, I have not done an exhaustive study.
FTFA: "uses that advocacy to raise money from oil companies and other corporations whose interests are threatened by climate policies. Heartland particularly celebrates the funding that it receives from the fossil fuel fortune being the Charles G. Koch Foundation."
Once again it comes down to Oil and Money with one organization steering the whole ship. Lessee... so the shopping list must look a bit like this:
[x] legal system pwned by koch
[x] judicial system pwned by koch
[x] polictical system pwned by koch
[ ] education sytsem pwned by koch
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Since some secular IT workers occupy positions of trust in superstitionist groups, and have the skill to leak information without getting busted (the Bradley Manning attention-whore model is not what to do!). they should consider doing so for the good of mankind.
IT workers can spy on superstitionists over time. Superstitionist political moves rely on hiding in the dark. IT folk can dump info (not from your own IP and don't forget MAC spoofing) into the light, and expose their machinations.
IT workers are taken for granted, their reach is considerable, and with malice and planning they can take the fight to the enemy. Don't forget to "follow the money".
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
I wonder if their end goal is a fascist state, or if they're simply trying to preserve their economic advantage.
Same thing really - eventually the economic advantage is enough that it causes the masses to resent the privileged class, who then must enlist the power of the state to enforce its economic advantage (or else the masses will simply use force to recover the wealth currently going to the privileged class). The state, in turn, must then ignore the will of the people in favor of the corporations, and eventually a nucleus of pliant politicians and corporate overlords is running everything.
I am officially gone from
"I wonder if their end goal is a fascist state, or if they're simply trying to preserve their economic advantage."
Yes.
Wow, denier funding is peanuts. These documents contradict the constant claims of 'well funded climate denialism'. It shows they were never true, alarmists simply made them up.
For years I never really knew if deniers were well funded or not. Now I know they were never well funded.
Its the greenies who have been well funded all along.
Thank you Desmogblog. Nice work
The headline claims a revelation of "Opposition to Science", but the post itself only makes assertions about climate skepticism. If the writer really equates the two, he should try to calm down.
the way i look at it, global warming is a political issue created by al gore. as it's political, one side has to take one view and the other the opposing. both are wrong, both cherry picking data to make their case and that's not science. the question is how much climate change is caused by human activity? if you parse through all the partisan crap, the only honest answer is "i don't know". there is honest debate amongst scientists world-wide about this; it is not settled. so everyone, calm down and say " i don't know", but one day, science will have a definitive answer but right now, it's not simple. and by all this i don't' mean, we don't know so go dump a ton of toxins into the air either.
Somehow, I always manage to be impressed at how bad people are at reading noisy graphs and at computing trends.
By using the word "pseudoscience"? You're really bad at this.
That's certainly the way things are going. The police are more and more of a corporate army.
The most damning part of the climate strategy document wasn't the curriculum stuff, it was this:
In other words, they don't want a debate.
The budget document says that their key projects are (in order of funding): eliminating or reducing FDA approval requirements for new medicines, opposing the Wisconsin recall elections (i.e. anti-union activity), opposing global warming, supporting charter schools and the privatization of education, supporting fracking, and a couple of Chicago-specific items. The Wisconsin work goes by the name Operation Angry Badger, for no apparent reason.
The fundraising document is the most interesting, and describes an "Anonymous Donor" who once gave them half of their money but is now merely the largest donor. This donor is particularly interested in climate change, and has earmarked the majority of his donations for related projects.
There's a description of their anti-IPCC report project:
Again with the anonymous donors.
There's a long description of the anti-AGW curriculum project. It was proposed by a consultant who works with the Department of Energy, Dr. David Wojick. Wojick studies science education, and his knowledge of national test requirements and contacts in educational organizations are described as his key attributes. He is not described as a climate scientist.
Visit the
It is difficult to describe the AGW alarmists work as science so pseudoscience would be appropriate. Point to one model the AGW people rely on that can predict the historically recorded past, let alone the future. You can't because none of the models work. And for scientific theory to have been proven, then the theory must have criteria with which the data can change to disprove the theory. So far, nobody has come out with a way to disprove the theory, no matter what you do to manipulate the data. Face it, you have a theory that doesn't track proven facts, can't predict the past and has no criteria that can be changed to disprove the theory. Epic Fail for your science.
The fact is that this is terrorism by any other name. This is Charles Manson directing the activities of his Family. The Heartland Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute and all the rest of the rogues gallery of Koch Instruments are effectively building a bomb - a bomb named inaction- that will kill every one of us and our children, and they are fully intent on setting that bomb off.
These individuals are a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States of America and they need to be dealt with within that defining context and no other. It is directly because of their actions that steps needed to preserve our civilization against catastrophic climate change have not been taken despite the fact they're well within our ability:
http://cmi.princeton.edu/wedges/
I understand that many reading this will not see advocating for provably suicidal policies and conspiring to influence society to take suicidal steps as a crime. To them I say- the definition of what is criminal does and must change because criminals adapt and change. The means they have to effect their ends change and the scope of devastation they can effect enlarges. The purpose of a system of laws is to protect society against the self chosen behaviour of criminals, whatever that behaviour may be. Criminals should not expect that they can evade justice by gaming the law.
It's criminals themselves who force society's and and decide what laws will come to exist. In a free society that seeks to protect the greatest freedom for each individual and which values liberty, the rule of law is by nature reactionary. But that cannot mean that society will permit criminals to leverage that permissive attitude into an act of world wide homicide.
There is ONE objective reality, not many. This conservative Post Modernist bullshit whereby YOU have YOUR reality but conservatives get THEIR OWN version of reality is cultural and planetary suicide.
There is ONE reality and human caused climate change is a fact of that reality.Continued inaction will lead directly to the extinction of civilization. Those are facts. Anyone advocating for that course of non-action is acting as a terrorist against everyone in every nation who is alive now or will be at all times forward.
That is a fact, not an opinion.
Remember, it really didn't matter that the Nazis "really believed" their load of scientific crap they used to justify their genocidal policies. We still prosecuted them in Nuremberg , then we found them guilty and then we hung them.
This is exactly what needs to be done with the individuals and funders of these denier organizations. No one cares if you *really believe* your bullshit or you know you're lying through your teeth. Neither does it matter that in your view your *rights* include to the *right* to yell "no fire!!" in a burning theater.
It's amusing to see that people who are attempting to implement policies which we know will lead to mass death on a scale which will dwarf the body count and social upheaval of WWII think they can get away with it because they've found a worm hole in the rule of law to squeeze through on the other side of which no one can touch them.
In Nuremberg, the Allies faced a similar problem. Because the victims of the Nazis were not enemy troops, the Geneva Convention did not apply.
Similarly because the victims were under Nazi rule at the time, they were subject to German law and no Nazi broke any German law.
This was the first thrust of the defense the Nazis raised- "hey, we broke no law..."
And what was the solution the Allies came up with in Nuremberg? We just made up- ex post facto- the crimes we decided the Nazis had committed- something we called Crimes Against Humanity .
Then we tried them for those crimes. Then we found them guilty. Then we hung them.
Before Nuremberg the concept of Crimes Agains
The "heartland" institute's money trail leads back to the Koch-roaches (or their ilk) and their ongoing attempts to break up the USA into something more easily harvested and ruled? Just askin'
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
But that presumes they've never heard of the Streisand Effect, and are stupid as hell.
Well, I suppose it's possible that they haven't heard of the Streisand Effect.
One example: http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/12/02/american-vs-international-news-time-and-newsweek/
Don't want to think., methodically manipulated by media, the people behind this sort of dis-information targeting children should be removed from any position of influence or power.
A generation of consumer cattle.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
You are mistaken if you think this will be a problem for the Heartland Institute. With the crowd that they are interested in playing to, the denigration of science is a plus. For the hard-core tea baggers and the biblical literalists, science is the enemy. Science is a liberal plot to disprove everything that they KNOW is good and true. If the Heartland Institute plays up the "we hate science" agenda, and they get traction with publicity, just watch. They money will roll in.
> "We've all known" is shorthand for "I'm always right and need no evidence or logic to support my position"; and that's anti-science.
It's not anti-science. It's Faith-Based Science.
Similarly there is a branch of Faith-Based Math. If you have enough faith, then 2+2=5.
This approach also works with funding of science programs. Legislators should pray more about their decisions. If God wants them to fund science and basic research programs, then He will give them a sign. In the meantime, think of the savings in the budget. If God wants us to think climate change is real, and caused by humans, then he will send us a sign -- such as major planetary ecological collapse, or something.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Somehow, I am always impressed at how the Warmists can so easily dismiss data that doesn't agree with their religion.
I can be paid to call Human-induced Climate Change a crock of shit? Sign me up! Can I also be paid to advocate that sugar is sweet and the sun is bright?
No, but you can be paid to say that excess sugar consumption has no health consequnes and that CFC's don't damage the Ozone layer.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Relative to what? One particular coastline? Sand gets washed away you know.
Call me when you measure the average sea level relative to the center of the earth.
Oh look, your link is to a blog of someone selling a book. That would be fine, except he doesn't say where he got his data. There's no source. His charts and comments aren't backed up by anything. It would be interesting stuff, if I could give it an ounce of trust.
These people are no different than Young Earth Creationists (wouldn't be surprised if there was some overlap.). That is to say their views lead them to reject science rather than science informing their views. They should be learning to accommodate the science within their views. Denying reality leads to disaster.
Here's the thing instead of funding a campaign to sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt, why don't they fund actual science? Left and right should be debating on what to do about human caused global warming and not whether or not it is happening.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
I followed the link provided, and was immediately struck by the first graph in the header showing a dropping trend over 6,000 years and an arrow at the end where it rises a bit and the text "global warming part". Obviously this shows that by taking a very narrow view, an unscrupulous scientist can make it appear like it is getting warmer.
Now to the headline: 2011 Global Sea Level Dropped back to 2008 Levels. I would like to see those three years highlighted on the first graph. They are saying that they have proof that global warming is wrong by taking an extremely narrow view of the data. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.
You're right, I didn't notice that. Unfortunately, climate science has a good deal of lobbying tied up with it, across the spectrum. This is the first time I've seen an alleged attempt at silencing opposition from the non-AGW side, but unsurprising. If the documents are legitimate, then both sides are attempting to silence the other. This has no bearing on the science question. Science can be good or bad science, e.g. Mendelian genetics vs. Lysenkoism. This is my own speculation, but assuming the internal documents are legitimate, the reference to "teaching science" may have been internally understood as referring to bad science or pseudo-science. Being meant for internal use, this seems plausible. I'm not stating what the documents meant, only stating an alternative interpretation that requires actual research and analysis. Neither of the two articles attempt to verify the legitimacy of the documents and their interpretation of the material is entirely self-serving, failing to consider alternative possibilities. Serious-minded people should not draw any conclusions until an independent and non-ideological analysis of the documents has been conducted; multiple such analyses may reach different conclusions, but at least there would be a factual basis supported by evidence for doing so. Posting the story on /. before this had been done was premature, and only served as flamebait for people of differing views to shadowbox over shadowy and unverified charges. The issues are whether the documents are legitimate and untampered with or some form of hoax, and if legitimate the meaning of the word "science" in the sentence. Everything else, especially the scientific basis of AGW, is off-topic unproductive trolling.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
Since the sources in TFA are being slashdotted, I did a Google search for "heartland institute leak" to find other sources.
First Google ad? RSA Data Loss Prevention XD
http://i.imgur.com/tUgjG.jpg
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
What?! Do you know this person you're replying to? Do you know for sure that he's a card carrying member of the denialist league? How do you know he didn't say something similar when that other stuff came out?
Assume much?! I hope you don't consider yourself to be a scientist or an engineer. Because from the sounds of it, you're more like a sports fan rooting for your team. Lean to think.
Maybe climate change is happening, maybe it isn't. I don't think anyone really knows for certain. However, this is NOT an excuse to continue to burn fossil fuels and polluting our environment. Ultimately, fossil fuels are unsustainable as long term energy solutions. We need to look at hydrogren, solar, wind, and maybe even nuclear. Heartland Institute sounds suspiciously like a lobby group for the "clean" coal and oil industries, nothing more and nothing less. They have a vested interest in supporting their respective industries. This brings me to another point, "clean" coal, is bullshit! It is still a carbon based product being burned and since when does coal burn cleanly. Usually, burining coal results in a dark smoke that cannot possibly be good for the environment.
http://youtu.be/f8U_JveHS8E?t=54s
I ... once had a science teacher flat out tell us that she ... wasn't going to risk her job just so we could learn
It's actually data from three different satellites. (The much larger dataset from an earlier satellite is not included.) You can get information on how exactly the data is measured by searching for those satellite projects.
The data seems to actually be legitimate, although the period of observation is pretty short and the seasonal fluctuations are large compared to the trend they're measuring (which is why the larger dataset is useful). The European satellite's dataset is particularly short and suddenly substantially deviates from NASA's starting about two years ago.
So this was originally posted by desmogblog which got a hold of the documents. The guy who runs the blog wrote a book a while back all about the begginings of climate change denial. Its called "Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming" by James Hoggan with Richard Littlemore. Hogan is actually a pretty conservative entrapeneur but when he started digging he got a bit freaked out. Apparently Big Tobacco actually offered up its fake science institute to Big Oil to start creating doubt about climate change buy suggesting there was actual scientific debate about it.
Yes Cindy - there really is a fat white guy smoking a cigar and stroking his cat and laughing evilly.
"Denialism"?
News for you. Climate change is the religion, not the people who demand scientific rigor, accountability and honesty.
Slashdot, you are full of shit. Again.
Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
Now if this were *real* science, one side or the other would be able to unequivocally silence the other with incontrivertable facts.
Only scientists are silenced by facts -- because they are (generally) interested in learning something. The inability to coolly examine counter-evidence is a sure sign of denial. This is actually an integral part of our political process, and goes way beyond the climate change debate.
Your assumptions on the human condition are plain wrong.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
1) Some scientists believe there in NO Global warming.
2) Most scientists believe Global Warming is happening.
3) Among those, probably most believe that Man contributes to this warming.
4) Among those, even fewer believe than Man contributes a lot to global warming.
5) Many of that group believe Mans contribution is going to result in a catastrophe.
What I hear from these groups is:
1) The science is not completed. We need further study.
2) The science is not completed. We need further study.
3) The science is not completed. We need further study.
4) The science is not completed. We need further study. Start to become concerned and consider radical changes.
5) The science is complete. Panic. The other scientists are hacks, don't believe them. Radical changes NOW!
Who am I supposed to believe here?
I'm just "this guy", you know?
If it is, then they have already won. I wonder how long they can hold it? I doubt if they can beat Marco's high score. Or even Hitler's.
That's called false balance sir. All sides of an argument are not always valid and equal. That's the problem with the media today. Opposing arguments to accepted science the media so very often portray as equal in validity in the name of "balance." Such as this and many other manufactured controversies I can think of.
"Dr. Wojick is a consultant with the office of Scientific and Technical Information at the U.S. Department of Energy in the area of information and communication science. His effort will focus on providing a curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain--two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science."
Let me go through that last sentence with you nice and slowly, so that you (thickos) can actually understand what it says, not what you WANT it to say:
"His effort will focus on providing a curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain".
Understand that part? Surely you can't have misunderstood that part.
"-- two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science".
Which means that the fact that so-called 'climate change' is controversial and uncertain is the reason that teachers are dissuaded from teaching it in their science classes. DUH.
You. Fucking. Morons.
It quite clearly does NOT say that the 'evil' Heartland is trying to 'dissuade teachers from teaching science', but you numbskulls are so obsessed with your shitty little cult, that you can't even read English properly any more! Morons! You actually read that as meaning that Heartland is TRYING TO DISSUADE teachers from teaching science. Fucking. Morons.
Which is why you believe the AGW bullshit, because you aren't bright enough to think for yourselves, and so cling to whatever crap the media pumps out - oh you rebels you!
Try reading www.climatedepot.com for a change.
So - I guess that physics and astronomy are also pseudoscience. Because they cannot generate a model that will tell us when the next asteroid will hit the Earth.
Get the pitchforks and torches, and burn down the science departments!
Check your premises.
http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/(1-15-2012)%202012%20Fundraising%20Plan.pdf
Considering how vocal are them pushing their ideas of "right" everywhere, probably the clowns of the Stephen King's It kind, or Batman's Joker one. The show must go on.
The Heartland Institute has posted a notice on their website that the doc the Guardian published is a fake:
One document, titled “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy,” is a total fake apparently intended to defame and discredit The Heartland Institute. It was not written by anyone associated with The Heartland Institute. It does not express Heartland’s goals, plans, or tactics. It contains several obvious and gross misstatements of fact.
We respectfully ask all activists, bloggers, and other journalists to immediately remove all of these documents and any quotations taken from them, especially the fake “climate strategy” memo and any quotations from the same, from their blogs, Web sites, and publications, and to publish retractions.
The individuals who have commented so far on these documents did not wait for Heartland to confirm or deny the authenticity of the documents. We believe their actions constitute civil and possibly criminal offenses for which we plan to pursue charges and collect payment for damages, including damages to our reputation. We ask them in particular to immediately remove these documents and all statements about them from the blogs, Web sites, and publications, and to publish retractions.
Heartland also claims that some genuine documents were stolen and then altered.
So, do we have another Dan Rather Memogate here?
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Yeah the democrats have been trying to cut funding to education and environmental protection for years. Fucking idiot. Obviously education funding was wasted on you.
The main document is a fake and several others have been altered. Didn't see it in the discussion. Thought I'd mention it. http://heartland.org/press-releases/2012/02/15/heartland-institute-responds-stolen-and-fake-documents
I have sympathy with what you say, fine prose. But debate will move with the position taken by the organisations response of course. You cant plead for rumor and speculation to be shut down given the fact that this is how the world is these days. Unlike the world of our media sources which present a story as entertainment and move on to the next juicy titbit the online world takes a story and starts with the soundbite (which is all this story really is at the moment) and then follows it through the twists and turns of data to the fading echos. This is phillosophically not unlike that which the scientific method uses to reach a conclusion and it is good.
The "climategate affair" turnned out to be without substance, no one was found to be behaving badly or trying to mislead anyone, it mainly turned out to be nerds pissed off at being trolled. I agree this piece of information we are discussing could well turn out to be of minor importance in the understanding of what we should do about the climate question.
However it does raise the question about whether people with economic power are meddling with our world view in opposition to our individual interests for their own gain. This is a more important question than whether we should be taking precautions agains Bangladesh going underwater or propping up distasteful regimes who can sell us oil. For 40 years I bought into the idea that we had to fight a disgusting cold war against a Soviet regime that put people in gulags because of their resistance to a bad political system, a war that was poisonous to innocent developing countries. I put up with it because it felt right.But I dont think that I am going to sign up to a status quo that hands my life and that of my children, or the rest of the world over to the self interest of the super rich. Particularly after our cherished capitalist system hit the rocks with the rich taking the profit and leaving the tax payers to pay for the failed risk. Lets see how the story develops.
We are tired of silence, we will have openness in our political systems, we want evidence and facts and most of all we want to be able to take our own decisions just like democracy promised we could.
On this one I will go out on a limb and suggest that Anonymous might take an interest in this over the next few years, particularly as there are going to be a huge number of skilled, unemployed and very bored youngsters around. I dont think they are reading Heartlnnd sponsered blogs or watching Fox news, why would they?
Its different this time, they are online, they are smart and have a terrible sense of humor, bless em.
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
The real "AGW alarmists" are those who say responding to global warming will destroy the economy, cost an insane amount of money and reduce us all to living an 18th century lifestyle if not a caveman lifestyle. Most people who are concerned about the effects of global warming are realistic enough to realize it will take 30-40 years to wean ourselves from dependence on fossil fuels and the sooner and more strongly we put our effort into that the better the ultimate result will be.
I know you're just trolling or rabid, but actually (a) I'm a scientist and (b) it really has nothing with what I happen to think about various points in climate scientist. Everyone does it -- on the whole, readers are flat-out bad at assessing graphs and statistics, and writers are deceptive in creating them.
If the documents are legitimate, then both sides are attempting to silence the other.
Assuming they are legitimate, then don't show anything about the other side, that much should be clear.
Anyway, you can read these documents - there is no indication in there that anyone is looking to find out the truth. They might be convinced to know the truth and act in order to address an imagined imbalance, that's a possibility, I give you that. However they are not trying to further an open discussion - there is no such point in the agenda document. They are funded by a very small number of donors and they are trying to shape public discussion to the desires of these donors. There is nothing honest and nothing open about their activities, though it's possible that they are acting on the conviction they are right and that therefore the ends would justify the means for them.
It's not impossible that by accident they'd happen to latch on the correct side of the debate, but it's very unlikely. You can stumble into the truth, but stumbling is not a useful method for seeking it.
I guess some of you haven't heard that the most serious docs "released" are fakes?
One document, titled “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy,” is a total fake apparently intended to defame and discredit The Heartland Institute. It was not written by anyone associated with The Heartland Institute. It does not express Heartland’s goals, plans, or tactics. It contains several obvious and gross misstatements of fact.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/15/notes-on-the-fake-heartland-document/#more-56736
You've been had and so have the mainstream media who jumped on this without checking into it.
We see this with politicians. Sontoram wants to limit the rewards of lawsuits, but when his wife injured her back and blamed a doctor, he was right there to request an inordinate amount of money. We see it with Gingrich now. He is lying as much if not more than anyone else in the presidential campaign, but what does he want to do, Sue. He can't take the attacks and defend himself like a man. He has to hid behind the threat of jurisprudence.
The fact i when consumer or employee is injured by the powerful, they are expected to bend over and take it. But when the powerful and often conservative are even inconvenienced, they feel they have been mortally wounded. I mean everyone knows that such people have been chosen by god to lead a guided life, and who would dare to deny them their special privileges.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Had to look up Heartland, then was annoyed I'd forgotten. Columnist George Monbiot wanted to do his journalistic due-diligence before touting an opinion on climate change and tracked down the sources of all the anti-GW statements he could find. He kept coming back to a small number of institutes that received money from the oil and coal industries -and many of them already had a record of touting that tobacco doesn't cause cancer, going back decades. Heartland, as the wikipedia reminded me, was one of them.
I noted the term "The AGW crowd" in comments here. Well said. I couldn't believe climate change stuff for years, until about 2004 - because by then, the "AGW crowd" was such a very, very LARGE crowd of very eminent, earnest people who were NOT getting money from large industries. Yup, I accepted "argument from authority", because I didn't have time to do my own climatology research...just like I accept argument from authority about medicine from research physicians that are not getting paid by large companies. (Which many are.)
yeah, classical Streisand Effect here
These days I dont even bother to debate denialists, they are simply not interested in finding facts that dont suit their preconcieved view. Dont waste your time with them guys. This is a classic example where they have been caught out absolutely, but out come the same lies and deception methods they always use.
Wow.
I just read your highly emotional back and forth above and below on this comment tree. It's borderline hysterical and certainly rude as all get-out. I wish people were more aware that causing elevated emotional responses in the public is the key to motivating masses into doing incredibly stupid things they later go on to regret.
It's key to presenting distortions as 'factual'. There are a whole raft of psychological mechanics which serve this end. It boils down to: "Freak people out and they stop thinking clearly."
That's how the banks managed to swindle the public via Obama's bailouts. After we learned what really went down, we see that fear and panic were propagated and then used to make us allow something stupid to happen.
The same thing can be observed with AGW. And, as it happens, the same parties will benefit $$-wise. (Carbon taxes aren't some sort vague notion which will affect only industry. The idea being floated is that you and I will personally pay a tax for existing. It's another way to push people into modern serfdom. The elites will profit, again, it will remove valuable self-controls from our lives, it will increase the amount of monitoring and restriction of freedom, and it will have been done in the name of saving the world. It's an evil money-grab sold to people who genuinely want to do the right thing, to be good, but who get too emotional and move too quickly and forget the enormous power of media and public relations firms. And the powers behind those bodies and what they really want; To remain in power, and to have all wealth channel to them, and to make sure that we, the slaves of the world, pay for it all.
I know this is an upsetting idea to you; you've got your sacred cow in the form of AGW, and right now you've got a huge ego investment in 'winning' this (childish) debate spinning out here on Slashdot. And I'm not saying that there isn't plenty of good reason to be upset over pollution and irresponsible industry. But you're not seeing the big picture. And the big picture is a LOT bigger than you realize. A lot bigger than nearly any of the skeptics, denialists, believers, etc., are cognizant of and thus are able to allow into their debate.
Global Climate Change is certainly real. But it is just one aspect of a larger phenomenon. There's a great deal more going on than just temperature changes due to gas collection in the atmosphere. That's just a tiny part of the whole.
Look up "Nemesis theory/ Twin Sun"
Then look up, "Electric Universe Theory" as promoted by astrophysicist James McCanney. (Ever wonder why the surface of the Sun is about 1,000,000 to 20,000,000 degrees Kelvin, while the lower regions where all that nuclear fusion we were told about in school are only around 4,100 K? Current science models don't know, but there are theories which explain this neatly. The only problem is that those models require a complete re-imagining of the nature of the solar system.)
While you're at it, you should probably look up "Comet cluster" and "cyclical extinction".
There's a lot going on in the world and the solar system which perks the awareness of people who are not running around with their hair on fire. Little items like that new spot which so recently popped up on Jupiter. And the imposing completion of the Great American Lockdown. And the oh-so-convenient predictions of that lumbering apocalypse cult, Christianity.
Humanity is being manipulated on many levels, and "objective truth" as you point out, is very important. You simply don't have enough of it on your plate to work with.
And you're throwing insults and high emotion around in service to your sacred cows. Until you sort that part of yourself out, you'll not have the benefit of the clear thinking required to understand anything.
Just a quick question: Are you also a vegetarian?
I could be wrong, but you certainly sound like one. That's also a big problem. Without proper nutrition, people have very little chance of crawling out of the labyrinth.
I love it when people try to be two different people in a thread. It's so transparent.
You're not a scientist. That's the bottom line. The process of science is the process you're attempting to engage in - the process of posing alternative theories, evaluating hypotheses and rejecting them.
The thing you can't accept, because you either aren't going to are haven't yet grown out of your fundamental narcissism which leads you to believe you can adjudicate this matter meaningfully, is that you're fundamentally incapable of determining truth in this technical matter and yet, it will impact your life enormously.
That's how it is. You don't get to decide what happens in the larger part of your life.
Being an adult means coming to terms with that fact and accepting that it's not just true, but also proper and moral. It means giving up just so stories- "alternative explanations" in this case- which are just fairy tales and projections of what you wish were true, and instead facing facts, including the fact of your own limitations to understand things.
yea, where is it?
I believe that environmentally destructive man-made global warming is NOT here today. It was supposed to be here. It is NOT here.
Temp rise (way wrong!)
# hurricanes in 2010 (wrong)
Rise in Ocean (wrong)
If the AGW folks would do some real science instead of pushing for bigger grants...
The sad thing is that I believe there may be man-made global warming... but I do not trust certain Scientists. Mann, that pisses me off.
By the same logic you should stop emitting CO2!
Ya know what? I was wrong. FOX did cover this after all. Of course, they put their own spin on it. They didn't cover the documents, they covered the theft of the documents. The docs themselves get covered, but not after lavishing column-inches on the ethical lapse of an environmental scientist, and how dangerous this is to the donors of the Heartland Institute.
bah.