U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-13-2012, 11:51 AM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
29,527 posts, read 29,720,586 times
Reputation: 11990

Advertisements

General Motors this week said it would cease funding the Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank that denied global warming as “junk science,” according to The Los Angeles Times.

The Times said the announcement was a direct result of the leak of confidential funding documents (PDF) in February, which showed that the General Motors Foundation, which is separate from GM, had provided $30,000 to the institute over the last two years. Heartland Institute: GM yanks funding, says global warming is real | GlobalPost

Heartland Institute has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998. ExxonSecrets Factsheet: Heartland Institute

According to leaked documents, telecommunications giant AT&T gave at least $100,000 to the Heartland Institute — a tax-exempt organization which promotes conspiracy theories about climate scientists, distorts climate science, and attacks regulation of air and water pollution. In a statement to ThinkProgress Green, AT&T says its contributions are now “past.” AT&T Discontinues Funding To Climate-Denier Heartland Institute | ThinkProgress
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-13-2012, 11:58 AM
 
13,072 posts, read 10,726,798 times
Reputation: 2606
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
Geez, you are a broken record.

You ask for a source, I post, you ignore, then you demand a source.

Anthony Watts - SourceWatch

Richard Littlemore, "Heartland Insider Exposes Institute's Budget and Strategy" Heartland Institute, Feb. 14, 2012.

"Other cash recipients include Anthony Watts, the leading US climate sceptic blogger, who is to receive $US90,000 for his work this year."[LEFT]
Read more: Scientist denies he is mouthpiece of US climate-sceptic think tank
[/LEFT]


Scientist denies he is mouthpiece of US climate-sceptic think tank

And Watts himeself admits he is on their payroll.

An update on my Climate Reference Network visualization project | Watts Up With That?

Notes on the faked Heartland document | Watts Up With That?

And yes, I will discuss the funding for any of the source I have cited.


Quote:
A dismissal is unbecoming.

There are problems with the surface stations, even NASA admits this. You attempting to dismiss the issue by claiming one having a problem excludes the possibilities of many others having problems is simply dishonest. The issue of the stations goes beyond simple issues as I provided. This was merely one example of a problem in the records, note also that it was used as the Official record until someone pointed it out.

I would think that since you proclaim yourself a scientist, that this sort of thing would be interesting to you? I mean, after all, science is a process of discovery and an error is celebrated the same in such pursuits.

So you are trying to tell all of us here, never mind the problems, it all works out in the end? Very scientific of you!

You betray your attempts with your own words. I think we all see why you are here as your arguments show you to be an activist, not a scientist.
I never said that only one station has a problem. What I said is there to be read. But there are tens of thousands of stations. Not all or even a majority of them are in airports.

But the hypocrisy of your BFFL Watts is evidence when he then goes on in other posts to complain about the fact that many stations are no longer being used because of known problems. Which is it? Should we exclude ones like BWI where we know there are problems or should we include them? Because Watts uses both to support his claims. And if you are going to be talking about dishonest that tops the cake.
Insider?

Nice one.

Try fraudulently obtained documents and forged memos.

Pathetic.

I want to see how you spin Peter Glieck in this?

Lies, damn lies, and climate science...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2012, 12:04 PM
 
13,072 posts, read 10,726,798 times
Reputation: 2606
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
General Motors this week said it would cease funding the Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank that denied global warming as “junk science,” according to The Los Angeles Times.

The Times said the announcement was a direct result of the leak of confidential funding documents (PDF) in February, which showed that the General Motors Foundation, which is separate from GM, had provided $30,000 to the institute over the last two years. Heartland Institute: GM yanks funding, says global warming is real | GlobalPost

Heartland Institute has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998. ExxonSecrets Fact sheet: Heartland Institute

According to leaked documents, telecommunications giant AT&T gave at least $100,000 to the Heartland Institute — a tax-exempt organization which promotes conspiracy theories about climate scientists, distorts climate science, and attacks regulation of air and water pollution. In a statement to ThinkProgress Green, AT&T says its contributions are now “past.” AT&T Discontinues Funding To Climate-Denier Heartland Institute | ThinkProgress

Oh look, it is the "reporting agencies" that didn't do their due diligence and ran with forged documents! Certainly they have their facts straight now!

*chuckle*
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2012, 01:31 PM
 
14,810 posts, read 12,368,992 times
Reputation: 18640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
Insider?

Nice one.

Try fraudulently obtained documents and forged memos.

Pathetic.

I want to see how you spin Peter Glieck in this?

Lies, damn lies, and climate science...
Where did i say insider?

Anyway, even HI only claims that one document is "forged" and it's not the one where they admit paying Watts. And so what if the rest of them were not obtained legally it does not make them untrue.

Weren't the emails obtained in "climategate" obtained illegally? So your position is if something is obtained illegally that you think supports your position that is fine but when the same thing happens and shows the financial motives of your "source" it is not ok.

Your hypocrisy is astounding. So now we can add lack of integrity to your glaring lack of scientific credibility.

At least you are consistent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2012, 02:11 PM
 
13,072 posts, read 10,726,798 times
Reputation: 2606
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
Where did i say insider?

Anyway, even HI only claims that one document is "forged" and it's not the one where they admit paying Watts. And so what if the rest of them were not obtained legally it does not make them untrue.

Weren't the emails obtained in "climategate" obtained illegally? So your position is if something is obtained illegally that you think supports your position that is fine but when the same thing happens and shows the financial motives of your "source" it is not ok.

Your hypocrisy is astounding. So now we can add lack of integrity to your glaring lack of scientific credibility.

At least you are consistent.
So you don't read your own links?

You posted links supporting your claims, your links says it was an insider.

Also, you need to read the details about Anthony and his interaction with them as to what he was seeking and why. It puts things into perspective and shows the flaw in your accusation.

The one forged document is the only one that is of any real "gotcha" (for obvious reasons). The rest backfired as they actually showed how little they spend for such compared to CAGW activist donation politics. One point being that they were claimed to be heavily organized with Koch and this showed they don't get a dime from them.

Heartland is a political institution, it isn't a surprise they donate to their political causes and as you can tell from the real memos, there is no smoking gun, nothing nefarious or outside of normal dealings with such an agency.

Seriously, were you off the planet when this broke?

Read the link I gave you of the time line. Anthony talks about his dealings specifically concerning the issue. Your claim of him being a paid for site for propaganda is false.

Heck, what kills me is that your group fabricates a claim with these memos and the goes on and on about how its ok for him to commit this fraud all the while condemning the release of PUBLIC documents from a PUBLIC institution of scientists caught with their pants down (climategate), is swept under the rug even though the documents showed they were colluding with political activist groups and agencies to promote their "cause". Not only that, but we saw that Jones was pulling in MILLIONS of dollars from 3rd party donations from various political groups and we also confirmed that sites like "realclimate.org" were created specifically to attack skeptical research. Now you come attack Watts trying to make something stick all the while everything you are lobbing at him, you are guilty of yourself.

You guys are so vile and slippery it is disgusting.

And you wonder why people don't trust these intuitions? Give me a flipping break!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2012, 02:23 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
29,527 posts, read 29,720,586 times
Reputation: 11990
Nomander, I have noticed that when we post evidence, all you seem to be able respond with are snide remarks and insults...What is the problem? Do you have nothing to refute the evidence except your constant denial, insults and your pseudo science site, wotts up doc?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2012, 02:28 PM
 
13,072 posts, read 10,726,798 times
Reputation: 2606
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
Nomander, I have noticed that when we post evidence, all you seem to be able respond with are snide remarks and insults...What is the problem? Do you have nothing to refute the evidence except your constant denial, insults and your pseudo science site, wotts up doc?

You don't post evidence, you post news stories with no citations that use libelous claims as if they were fact.

What happens, is you make a severely stupid accusation, I provide the full context and evidence to the issue, and then you post me some stupid propaganda sites "claims" as if somehow I should take their word for it.

Perfect example is both of you going on about the Heartland issue, continuing to post claims that I already showed to be invalid posts before that.

Your problem is you don't read. You simply cut and paste as if you were passing on talking points.

I link and comment on everything I provide.

You on the other hand.....

You STEAL text from sources and try to pass them off as your own.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2012, 02:43 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
29,527 posts, read 29,720,586 times
Reputation: 11990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
You don't post evidence, you post news stories with no citations that use libelous claims as if they were fact.

What happens, is you make a severely stupid accusation, I provide the full context and evidence to the issue, and then you post me some stupid propaganda sites "claims" as if somehow I should take their word for it.

Perfect example is both of you going on about the Heartland issue, continuing to post claims that I already showed to be invalid posts before that.

Your problem is you don't read. You simply cut and paste as if you were passing on talking points.

I link and comment on everything I provide.

You on the other hand.....

You STEAL text from sources and try to pass them off as your own.
There you go again with the insults...You know as well as I do that I have posted scads of valid evidence from various reputable scientific sites..You, not so much...You are making quite a big deal out of me forgetting to provide a link, aren't you? That is your style, anything to discredit those who disagree with your stubborn denialist mindset....

All we have is your word that heartland and Watts his face are reputable, personally I don't think they are by any stretch...I believe that they are nothing but paid denialist flunkies.

In my opinion anyone who denies that the earth is warming considering all the evidence, must have some kind of mental gridlock going on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2012, 04:05 PM
 
13,072 posts, read 10,726,798 times
Reputation: 2606
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
There you go again with the insults...You know as well as I do that I have posted scads of valid evidence from various reputable scientific sites..You, not so much...You are making quite a big deal out of me forgetting to provide a link, aren't you? That is your style, anything to discredit those who disagree with your stubborn denialist mindset....
No, either you post a summary from a site like GISS or you post a news article from Huntington, Skeptical Science, etc... The news sites don't cite their work (and release documents without checking validity... aka the froged document from Glieck) and sites like Skeptical Science have already been proven to be devious because they modify the posts of responders (including scientists who have came to defend their work) after the fact (as well as modifying post times). This has been confirmed. So excuse me if I don't take your snotty little propaganda sites on their word. Especially when they use condescending commentary with arrogant attacks like "Denialist". As for the agency summaries or various research you provide, it is based on speculation through models. That is not confirmation, its guessing and doesn't confirm your claim.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
All we have is your word that heartland and Watts his face are reputable, personally I don't think they are by any stretch...I believe that they are nothing but paid denialist flunkies.
Word? Actually for one you have the idiot Glieck who admitted to fraud and you have the memos which contain nothing. All you do have is unfounded accusations on your part and again... snotty little childish remarks like "Denialist flunkies".

At least Watts site happens to cite everything they discuss AND provide the data/methodology for the work they do talk about. Your sites? We are to bow down and accept their authority.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
In my opinion anyone who denies that the earth is warming considering all the evidence, must have some kind of mental gridlock going on.

And here you go again, making the argument in your perfect little rose colored world. Nobody denies warming, stop being foolish. What they object to is the hypothesis specifically related to CAGW and you damn well know that.

You can't meet at the table honestly because you know you don't have a leg to stand on, which is why you continuously attempt to redefine the argument, the focus, and evade with name calling.

Your position is that CAGW is fact, mine is pointing out that you do not have sufficient evidence to establish that.

Your position requires people to accept appeals to authority and expert opinion as validated.

Mine merely has to show your position is lacking the support to conclude such.

My position is valid, yours is not.

This is why your camp is losing world support. You promoted assumption as fact and now it is coming back to bite you in the rear.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2012, 04:12 PM
 
14,810 posts, read 12,368,992 times
Reputation: 18640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
You don't post evidence, you post news stories with no citations that use libelous claims as if they were fact.

What happens, is you make a severely stupid accusation, I provide the full context and evidence to the issue, and then you post me some stupid propaganda sites "claims" as if somehow I should take their word for it.

Perfect example is both of you going on about the Heartland issue, continuing to post claims that I already showed to be invalid posts before that.

Your problem is you don't read. You simply cut and paste as if you were passing on talking points.

I link and comment on everything I provide.

You on the other hand.....

You STEAL text from sources and try to pass them off as your own.
I posted sources from NOAA and Science you posted Watts as a source.

End of story.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top