Excerpt from HB0368 (the "Monkey" bill): "(2) The teaching of some scientific subjects, including, but not limited to,
biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human
cloning, can cause controversy; and
(3) Some teachers may be unsure of the expectations concerning how
they should present information on such subjects." Source
I can't even begin to count how many times I've been told "Evolution 'skepticism' has NOTHING to do with Climate Change skepticism!"... from where I sit it's all there in black and white.
Peter Gleick says "I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication."... and that "The materials the Heartland Institute sent to me confirmed many of the facts in the original document, including especially their 2012 fundraising strategy and budget." (link).
You have not provided enough evidence to support the accusation of forgery.
"Are you suggesting that someone at the Heartland Institute offices in Central time zone scanned a document using a scanner configured as being in the Pacific time zone?"
Without a full investigation into the matter we can't rule out that a computer at the Heartland Institute was incorrectly configured to Pacific time. It happens.
It's also possible that a travelling member of the Heartland Institute scanned a copy of the document in pacific time.
To jump to the conclusion that the document is a forgery is simply not supported by the evidence available.
What I'm suggesting is that maybe Peter Gleick didn't "print one of them out and then scan it back into electronic format".
It's also possible that the person who prepared the original package of documents added a scanned copy of the 2012 Climate Strategy and then emailed the package off to Peter Gleick (posing as a board member).
All this is to say: Based on the available evidence it is very far from certain that the 2012 Climate Strategy document is a forgery.
Sure. The documents that are printed directly to PDF are the ones the Heartland Institute CAN'T deny ownership of.
The document in question could be a scan of an authentic document by someone who didn't have access to the soft copy.
The contents of the article you've linked to are, at best, conjecture.
The only way to know for sure is if the Heartland Institute turns over a full copy of their email & document archives.
You're going to have to provide some evidence for that.
The closest I've heard is that Heartland hasn't admitted yet that they authored the document. Considering the damning content I expect they'll confess sometime after hell freezes over.
Excerpt from the leaked Heartland Institute documents: "[Dr. Wojick's] effort will focus on providing 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." source.
That certainly sounds to me like a symptom of the anti-intellectual disease that is eating away at conservative support for science.
Preventing the extinction of animal species due to over-consumption comes at a price.
Preventing the expansion of the hole in the ozone layer due to CFCs comes at a price.
I wish it didn't cost a penny to protect species diversity and the atmosphere, but unfortunately wishing doesn't make it true.
As Carl Sagan would say "The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition."
In addition to tbannist's excellent response about the irrelevance of gun control (w.r.t. authoritarian personality traits), you might find what Mr. Altemeyer says about himself (in the text) quite interesting: "I have found that some people make assumptions about why I study authoritarianism that get in the way of what the data have to say. The stereotype
about professors is that they are tall, thin, and liberals. I'm more liberal than I am tall and thin, that's for sure. But I don't think anyone who knows me well would
say I am a left-winger. My wife is a liberal, and she and all her liberal friends will tell you I am definitely not one of them. Sometimes they make me leave the
room. I have quite mixed feelings about abortion, labor unions, welfare and warfare. I supported the war in Afghanistan from the beginning; I disapproved
of the war in Iraq from its start in March 2003.
I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Communist Party, or any other political party. I do give money to various parties, trying to defeat whomever I am most disgustatated [sic] with at the time...." (page 5).
I'm not sure why anybody really wants to talk about what Al Gore believes about Climate Change. I'd rather talk about what Carl Sagan, one of the most brilliant minds of his time, thought about the topic: "For our own world the peril is more subtle. Since this series [Cosmos] was first broadcast the dangers of the increasing greenhouse effect have become much more clear. We burn fossil fuels like coal, and gas, and petroleum putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and thereby heating the earth. The hellish conditions on Venus are a reminder that this is serious business. Computer models that successfully explain the climates of other planets predict the deaths of forests, parched crop lands, the flooding of coastal cities, environmental refugees; wide spread disasters in the next century, unless we change our ways. What do we have to do? Four things:
(1) Much more efficient use of fossil fuels. Why not cars that get 70 miles-per-gallon instead of 25?
(2) Research and development on safe alternative energy sources, especially solar power.
(3) Reforestation on a grand scale.
and (4) Helping to bring the billion poorest people on the planet to self-sufficiency, which is the key step in curbing world population growth.
Every one of these steps makes sense apart from greenhouse warming! Now, no one has proposed that the trouble with Venus is that there once was Venusians who drove fuel inefficient cars, but our nearest neighbour nevertheless is a stark warning on the possible fate of an earth-like world."
Carl Sagan, Cosmos (episode 4: Heaven and Hell (update - 10 years later))
I'd say you are about as likely to get a supply-side economist to admit that lowering taxes won't always be revenue neutral (the Bush tax cuts were supposed to "pay for themselves") as you are to get a creationist to admit evolution.
Unfortunately that is a false equivalency.
If you are interested in basing your gross over-generalizations about political groups on fact then I would recommend that you read The Authoritarians by Bob Altemeyer. Mr. Altemeyer was a Professor of Psychology at the University of Manitoba who spent ~20 years studying the psychological trait of Authoritarianism. The Authoritarians is a summary of his research targeted at a layman audience.
Coles notes:
While it is indisputable that there are some politically left-wing authoritarians the statistics show that authoritarians are overwhelmingly right-wing in their politics.
The mockery and rejection that Vic is being subjected to (for his use of a vitriolic false dilemma) is what George Bush should have gotten for his: "Either you are with us [in support of warrantless wiretaps, invasion of privacy, and Iraq war 2], or you are with the terrorists."
I think five audits have already been done and all five have exonerated the Climatologists under investigation. None were able to find any evidence of scientific malpractice.
You already got exactly what you asked for but it wasn't the result that you wanted.
What I find interesting is that you have taken issue with the (admittedly back-of-the-napkin) claim that Global Warming accounts for the Earth "gaining ~160 tonnes/year". I'm willing to bet that the calculations Dr Smith used to arrive at the estimate that the Earth is "losing ~16 tonnes/year" due to the core cooling are even less accurate... and yet you don't seem to have any problem with those!
All that is to say: Your comment makes me think that you saw the words "Global Warming" in TFA and issued a knee-jerk "that's absurd!" reaction.
Slashdot Mirror
Damn I wish I had saved my "C is C" joke for this comment instead.
Ayn Rand would approve. To paraphrase:
C is C.
Who the hell told Uncle Ruckus (no relation) about slashdot?
I wonder if you could build enough of these to produce an artificial rainshadow effect downwind?
Excerpt from HB0368 (the "Monkey" bill):
"(2) The teaching of some scientific subjects, including, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning, can cause controversy; and
(3) Some teachers may be unsure of the expectations concerning how they should present information on such subjects."
Source
I can't even begin to count how many times I've been told "Evolution 'skepticism' has NOTHING to do with Climate Change skepticism!"... from where I sit it's all there in black and white.
Yeah, I guess I'd be upset too if I accused someone of forgery without sufficient evidence to support that claim.
Peter Gleick says "I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication." ... and that "The materials the Heartland Institute sent to me confirmed many of the facts in the original document, including especially their 2012 fundraising strategy and budget." (link).
You have not provided enough evidence to support the accusation of forgery.
"Are you suggesting that someone at the Heartland Institute offices in Central time zone scanned a document using a scanner configured as being in the Pacific time zone?"
Without a full investigation into the matter we can't rule out that a computer at the Heartland Institute was incorrectly configured to Pacific time. It happens.
It's also possible that a travelling member of the Heartland Institute scanned a copy of the document in pacific time.
To jump to the conclusion that the document is a forgery is simply not supported by the evidence available.
What I'm suggesting is that maybe Peter Gleick didn't "print one of them out and then scan it back into electronic format".
It's also possible that the person who prepared the original package of documents added a scanned copy of the 2012 Climate Strategy and then emailed the package off to Peter Gleick (posing as a board member).
All this is to say: Based on the available evidence it is very far from certain that the 2012 Climate Strategy document is a forgery.
Sure. The documents that are printed directly to PDF are the ones the Heartland Institute CAN'T deny ownership of.
The document in question could be a scan of an authentic document by someone who didn't have access to the soft copy.
The contents of the article you've linked to are, at best, conjecture.
The only way to know for sure is if the Heartland Institute turns over a full copy of their email & document archives.
You're going to have to provide some evidence for that.
The closest I've heard is that Heartland hasn't admitted yet that they authored the document. Considering the damning content I expect they'll confess sometime after hell freezes over.
Excerpt from the leaked Heartland Institute documents:
"[Dr. Wojick's] effort will focus on providing 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."
source.
That certainly sounds to me like a symptom of the anti-intellectual disease that is eating away at conservative support for science.
Preventing the extinction of animal species due to over-consumption comes at a price.
Preventing the expansion of the hole in the ozone layer due to CFCs comes at a price.
I wish it didn't cost a penny to protect species diversity and the atmosphere, but unfortunately wishing doesn't make it true.
As Carl Sagan would say "The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition."
A co-worker recently observed that people are sweating in their shorts and t-shirts while running next to the still partially frozen Ottawa canal.
In addition to tbannist's excellent response about the irrelevance of gun control (w.r.t. authoritarian personality traits), you might find what Mr. Altemeyer says about himself (in the text) quite interesting: ..." (page 5).
"I have found that some people make assumptions about why I study authoritarianism that get in the way of what the data have to say. The stereotype about professors is that they are tall, thin, and liberals. I'm more liberal than I am tall and thin, that's for sure. But I don't think anyone who knows me well would say I am a left-winger. My wife is a liberal, and she and all her liberal friends will tell you I am definitely not one of them. Sometimes they make me leave the room. I have quite mixed feelings about abortion, labor unions, welfare and warfare. I supported the war in Afghanistan from the beginning; I disapproved of the war in Iraq from its start in March 2003.
I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Communist Party, or any other political party. I do give money to various parties, trying to defeat whomever I am most disgustatated [sic] with at the time.
I'm not sure why anybody really wants to talk about what Al Gore believes about Climate Change. I'd rather talk about what Carl Sagan, one of the most brilliant minds of his time, thought about the topic:
"For our own world the peril is more subtle. Since this series [Cosmos] was first broadcast the dangers of the increasing greenhouse effect have become much more clear. We burn fossil fuels like coal, and gas, and petroleum putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and thereby heating the earth. The hellish conditions on Venus are a reminder that this is serious business. Computer models that successfully explain the climates of other planets predict the deaths of forests, parched crop lands, the flooding of coastal cities, environmental refugees; wide spread disasters in the next century, unless we change our ways. What do we have to do? Four things:
(1) Much more efficient use of fossil fuels. Why not cars that get 70 miles-per-gallon instead of 25?
(2) Research and development on safe alternative energy sources, especially solar power.
(3) Reforestation on a grand scale.
and (4) Helping to bring the billion poorest people on the planet to self-sufficiency, which is the key step in curbing world population growth.
Every one of these steps makes sense apart from greenhouse warming! Now, no one has proposed that the trouble with Venus is that there once was Venusians who drove fuel inefficient cars, but our nearest neighbour nevertheless is a stark warning on the possible fate of an earth-like world."
Carl Sagan, Cosmos (episode 4: Heaven and Hell (update - 10 years later))
I'd say you are about as likely to get a supply-side economist to admit that lowering taxes won't always be revenue neutral (the Bush tax cuts were supposed to "pay for themselves") as you are to get a creationist to admit evolution.
Unfortunately that is a false equivalency.
If you are interested in basing your gross over-generalizations about political groups on fact then I would recommend that you read The Authoritarians by Bob Altemeyer. Mr. Altemeyer was a Professor of Psychology at the University of Manitoba who spent ~20 years studying the psychological trait of Authoritarianism. The Authoritarians is a summary of his research targeted at a layman audience.
Coles notes:
While it is indisputable that there are some politically left-wing authoritarians the statistics show that authoritarians are overwhelmingly right-wing in their politics.
The mockery and rejection that Vic is being subjected to (for his use of a vitriolic false dilemma) is what George Bush should have gotten for his: "Either you are with us [in support of warrantless wiretaps, invasion of privacy, and Iraq war 2], or you are with the terrorists."
I think five audits have already been done and all five have exonerated the Climatologists under investigation. None were able to find any evidence of scientific malpractice.
You already got exactly what you asked for but it wasn't the result that you wanted.
Wasn't he supposed to be in the Test Chamber half an hour ago?
In a recent interview about the proposed tax on violent video games Mr. Nukem responded "No taxation without representation!"
What I find interesting is that you have taken issue with the (admittedly back-of-the-napkin) claim that Global Warming accounts for the Earth "gaining ~160 tonnes/year". I'm willing to bet that the calculations Dr Smith used to arrive at the estimate that the Earth is "losing ~16 tonnes/year" due to the core cooling are even less accurate... and yet you don't seem to have any problem with those!
All that is to say: Your comment makes me think that you saw the words "Global Warming" in TFA and issued a knee-jerk "that's absurd!" reaction.
Who had to occupy VW to get this to happen?
According to TFA: That would be the VW workers' union.
I'd call this move a solid victory for the working man brought about by collective bargaining.