The Climate Change Scare Machine Chart
The believers of man-made-weather-disasters are wetting themselves with excitement. It painful to watch grown men drool.
Poor things, they were really wounded by Climategate, and they’ve been waiting, praying that some day someone would level the playing field and show that skeptics were just as petty, shameless, and money-grubbing as their team turned out to be (not to mention hypocritical, deceptive and incompetent). In their dreams.
Instead the hyped non-denier-gate shows just how incredibly successful the Heartland Institute is. Look at the numbers. The skeptics have managed to turn the propaganda around against a tide of money, and it is really some achievement.
…
| Entity | USD | |
| Greenpeace | $300m | 2010 Annual Report |
| WWF | $700m | ” ($524m Euro) |
| Pew Charitable Trust | $360m | 2010 Annual Report |
| Sierra Club | $56m | 2010 Annual Report |
| NSW climate change fund (just one random govt example) | $750m | NSW Gov (A$700m) |
| UK university climate fund (just another random govt example) | $360m | UK Gov (£234 m) |
| Heartland Institute | $7m | (actually $6.4m) |
| US government funding for climate science and technology | $7,000m | “Climate Money” 2009 |
| US government funding for “climate related appropriations” | $1,300m | USAID 2010 |
| Annual turnover in global carbon markets | $120,000m |
2010 Point Carbon |
| Annual investment in renewable energy | $243,000m |
2010 BNEF |
| US government funding for skeptical scientists | $ 0 |
These are annual turnovers or annual budgets
So what the expose shows is that the Heartland Institute punches far above its weight with an incredibly efficient budget. That is, of course, assuming that the so-called expose is real and not a fake, or altered, which it could be, watch the Heartland site for any confirmation or information. [UPDATE: It was, see here]
This is a wake up call to the freedom loving people of the world, it’s time to make donations a regular part of your monthly budget to support all the people out there who work on your behalf. The fact that Heartland has only one major, generous donor is remarkable. Where are the rest?
The hypocrisy is flagrant. The Sierra Club listed a category for $1,000,000 donations by “anonymous donors” in their 2010 annual report. Strangely DeSmog didn’t froth with anticipation. Their Sierra Club annual report mentions “Matching Gifts”, and apparently supporters who matched gifts include the evil Exxon, not to mention GoldMan Sachs, Barclays, Google, Monsanto, Nestle, Yahoo, Bank of America, and many many more. But that’s alright then.
And if Bob Carter receives an honorarium type amount of $1500 a month, the pull of those big dollars must be powerfully tempting for people like Tim Flannery who struggle along on about $1200 each day he works.
As I always say when these matters are raised, YES Please. Let’s do talk about the funding.
* * *
The Climate Change Scare Machine shows how your tax dollars feed the cycle of alarm.
What stops the cycle?
…
UPDATE: Key Heartland document is a forgery? Look for updates on Heartland or Climate Depot.
UPDATE 18-2-2012. Delingpole has coined the term FakeGate and it’s apt, so I’ve renamed the title from “Logic-gate”. – Jo
Over on other blogs the pathetic trolls are treating this as Armageddon for sceptics.
However, it’s crystal clear from the numbers, if you want to make big bucks – join the eco-loons.
10
Trying to get an answer to an intriguing question at WUWT but although the lights are on there, no-one is home.
Perhaps JoNova can help.
Re the latest UofC Jason-2 sea level data update.
UofC have “adjusted” the data PRIOR to the latest update i.e. up to 2011.6917. The adjustments kick in at the beginning of 2009 but there’s minor changes going back to the beginning of the TOPEX series.
I’ve subtracted the previous dataset (uplifted Jan 22 2012) from the latest version (uplifted Feb 15 2012) and turns out there’s effectively been a +0.259mm/yr (0.007x*37) trend adjustment introduced from 2009.004 to 2011.6917 when the previous dataset ended.
The changes are both up and down so I don’t see how it can be GIA.
Clues? Please.
00
Hi Richard; so are you saying that even though there has been a drop in sea level since 2010 it would have been an even bigger drop without the ‘adjustment’ which has added to the sea level trend?
00
Yes cohenite, that is what I’m saying (thank you for responding0.
I’ve plotted the adjustments on sheet ‘T-J Version comparison’ of GMSL.xls in Dropbox here:- https://www.dropbox.com/home#/Public:::
That worksheet is rough as I haven’t had time to tidy it up. Column B is labeled at the bottom ‘Jan 22 2012’ and Column C ‘Feb 15 2012’. You can easily see the difference at Row 650.
Also in that Workbook on the ‘TOPEX Jason’ sheet, all I’ve done is tacked the new data onto the previous to update the trends. I did this before spotting the adjustments. I will have to go back at some stage and replace the entire old series with the new version but I’m in no rush to do that until I find out what’s going on.
00
I couldn’t get into Dropbox because I’m not signed up; I should do that! In any event you mentioned GIA as a possible explanation for these ‘adjustments’ and suggested it could not be that because the ‘adjustments’ were both up and down; my understanding is that GIA doesn’t preclude up and down movements so I wonder what you meant by that.
The other thing is, if they haven’t used GIA to justify the ‘adjustments’ then what have they [Colorado] relied on?
00
cohenite
You could email me here rscumming@gmail.com if you wanted the Workbook without the Dropbox drama, I’d return a copy of GMSL.xls.
Now that you point out, the adjustments do look like up and down GIA (except they get progressively larger) but I thought the GIA exercise was carried out 2011, so why has there been GIA in 2012? If that is what has been done and I’m not sure that’s the case yet.
Thanks to your feedback making me think about this I looked at the UofC page again, found this hiding in plain sight:-
I haven’t a clue what the second item means but that’s probably the reason because the Jason-2 span corresponds to the span of the adjustments.
I’ll search a bit more to see if there’s an operational report or something that describes “OSTM” and “CNES/GDR-T orbits” but I’m inclined to think the mystery is solved.
Means we can’t just tack update data onto previous data if they keep “adjusting” the previous data and a trend analysis has to start from scratch with the entire new series – nasty and a big lesson learned i.e. compare the two series first and don’t assume the previous data is frozen.
BTW, heard nothing back at WUWT ‘Sea level still not cooperating with predictions’ thread on this.
00
Thanks to a very helpful email from a reader (H/t N.E.) with attached instructions and advice about reading them (my weakness), the ‘Public Link’ for GMSL.xls is http://dl.dropbox.com/u/52688456/GMSL.xls
I would appreciate if someone tries this link to see if you get the file and reports back. Dropbox is a very powerful tool for this type of communication (better than Google Docs for spreadsheets?) so I need to get this working.
Caveat emptor.
00
Yes, it’s working now.
00
Thanks coh. Dropbox will be handy for other discussions.
00
Heartland shameful promotion of tobacco products, a proven killer, pretty much discredits them.
And they are really a lobby group portraying themselves as a ‘think tank’. This allows their donors to be able to write off their donation for tax purposes. So, they ARE subsidized by the taxpayers, despite claims of the contrary.
00
And your proof is where? I noticed the complete lack of any verifiable sources in your claim, pretty much discredits you.
00
You could find what I said with a simple web search.
http://www.no-smoke.org/getthefacts.php?id=74
Also search ‘heartland philip morris’ for many more.
And
http://heartland.org/about
Heartland does not accept government funding. Contributions are tax-deductible under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
Personally, I have no time for paid shills, no matter what they represent.
(Does this mean you will stop listening to Dr. Jones,Dr. Mann,Dr. Schmidt,Dr. Rohmm and more who are “paid shills”?) CTS
00
So why are you citing what could also be considered “paid shills”?
http://www.no-smoke.org? Really? That’s the best you can do to support your claims. Go away.
And do tell how any of your prior comment actually supports your claim of their being a lobbying group. Pretty weak.
Personally I have no time for people like you because of what you represent.
00
Then f$&k off! You come to this site whining about tobacco? Who gives a sh!t? If people want to smoke that is their business. I do not smoke but if someone does and refrains from smoking where it is illegal and does not blow it in my face I could care less!
00
My last comment wa not directed at Robert but that twit Bernard B.
00
What about GetUp! Funding:
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/getup-bankrolled-by-unions-20100820-138yq.html
In 2010 the CFMEU alone gave GetUp! $1,200,000. What for?
And GetUp! seems happy to take to filthy American Lucre under the table…
I wonder how much foreign cash influences GetStuffed politics?
GetUp! is a mob of hypocrites. From self-proclaimed principles:
But shonky foreign billionaires and union favours are cool.
00
Bernard,
do you understand the difference between “shameful promotion” and debunking outrageous exaggerations which are so typical of the anti crowd?
thanks
JK
00
“This allows their donors to be able to write off their donation for tax purposes. So, they ARE subsidized by the taxpayers, despite claims of the contrary.”
And Greepeace, WWF etc list themselves as charities so not only do they get the same “subsidies” from the respective governments but also avoid taxes themselves.
00
Idiot…. Do you understand what the Heartland Institute is? It’s a libertarian think tank. Their support for tobacco is support in the context of liberty. There are many of us who believes liberty should trump the nanny govt. I have as much right to fail as I do to succeed. In fact, if I don’t have a right to fail, then success is also taken from me.
Given your statement though, I seriously doubt you’ll understand what I’ve stated or grasp the concept.
00
So it is all about the money and power. It really makes me feel sad, thinking at how cynical all those “environmentalists” must be. It is all about the money…
That explains the doublethink, and the apparent madness of educated and well spoken.
All under a devious veil of “concern for environment” and “tomorrow’s children future”…
It also makes me shiver just to think that once the money changes course, so will those who are the “true believers”. Just like after the fall of the Communism, the same faces stayed on, torn their Party ID’s and declared themselves to be “new democrats”, who knew all along how bad the Communism was but had to lead the struggle from within.
I remember reading an interview with a chief of a psychiatric hospital, where they used to detain and torture dissidents during Soviet times. The bloke was still in power looong after the fall of the Communism. He made an impression of a very reasonable sort of a chap, and said that during Communism he genuinely believed that anyone to doubt the doctrine must have been mad, and therefore should have been treated…
Those kind of people are all amongst us, and it makes me wonder whether unbridled cynicism is a necessary trait for success.
Brrrr… I am now going to go and have a very large glass of red Cabernet Shiraz to cheer myself up…
00
“Those kind of people are all amongst us”
Look no further than many leaders of the global warming fraud as they call for legal action, imprisonment and other punishments for non-believers. One eco-twit in my home town (Portland Oregon USA) suggested setting up re-education camps for non-believers. (Of course re-education camp was the earlier name for the infamous concentration camps.)
I believe these people are very dangerous. Especially since they seem unable to evaluate facts and data and rely on emotional arguments instead.
Thanks
JK
00
How impartial are the Banks in all this “Climate Stuff”?
Given the Annual turnover in global carbon markets is $120 Billion we need to be aware of what everyone gets out of it.
The taxpayers of Europe and the US of course get nothing.
If the banks only charged one quater of a percent management fee on Carbon Credit turnover what would they make.
Yes you did your sums right:
USD$ 300 million clear.
(The cheap rate is because AGW is a good cause, sort of a charity)
00
Well Duh, Self reliant people are much more frugal with the use if other peoples money than freeloading idealistic wankers.
With that track record, The heartland institute should be put in charge of much larger responsibilities.
00
Jo, I am almost ashamed of you … you know full well Flannery has far more sources of income than that pitiful $1,200 a day … heck that would barely keep him in champagne and caviar.
After all we know he makes a fair salary at his day job:
https://mypassword.mq.edu.au/directory/index.php?Anchor=AAD43084-0648-11DB-AED6-F213AE95A174&type=browse&cat=staff&SearchStr=flannery&SearchCat=Full%20Name&ExactMatch=&id=AAD43084-0648-11DB-AED6-F213AE95A174
Then I see he got an expensive Chair:
http://www.science.mq.edu.au/news_and_events/news/new_panasonic_chair_in_environmental_sustainability
But wait, there’s more… he is also a member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists (sounds like some really serious fellows):
http://www.wentworthgroup.org/members/prof-tim-flannery
Who is behind that organisation you might well ask…
http://www.wentworthgroup.org/science-program
The Purves Environmental Fund eh? And who are they?
http://www.purvesenvirofund.org.au/
Hmmm warm, fuzzy, feel good… oh wait they have an Annual Report page:
http://www.purvesenvirofund.org.au/annual-review.html
They don’t talk about money much, but the one $ sign in the report says they have raised $6 million in their short existence, and every year some of that has gone to the concerned scientists. Perhaps they were concerned they were going to run out of champagne and caviar?
I know this isn’t an exhaustive list of ole Flanners’ income, but it gives an indication that he won’t have to worry about losing a few thousand to the Feds in the recent Medicare rebate cut. He can probably even afford the CO2 tax they are implementing without cramping the lifestyle he has no doubt become accustomed to…
00
Wow I get marked down for linking facts now? I guess the CAGW is getting more feral by the minute…
00
No, observe the current stats. It’s just that the Desperate Defenders are quick off the mark trying to create impressions like the one you fell for. 😉
00
Oh dear, that evil Bob Carter has been exposed by the warmists as a cash for commenter…how ridiculous!
I’ve had occasion to bump into Bob over the last few years and I can say that he would not alter his beliefs for any amount of money. Quite simply, he is his own man and certainly no patsy.
Wait a minute, we were having a chat at the Convoy rally and he accepted an orange wedge…must be on the pay of big citrus too!
00
This a quote from Carter:
“Global average temperature at the end of the twentieth century fell well within the bounds of natural climate variation, and was in no way unusually warm, or cold, in geological terms.”
If that’s his belief, then he is factuallly incorrect. Of course we know that Carter McLean and Defreitas bastardised the global temperature record (knowing of course that utilising data derivatives would exclude any long-term trend) to produce this result. McLean even stated that 2011 would be cooler than 1956, whoops!
And, of course, there’s Plimer whose latest opinion piece in the Australian on Glacial Melt plagerised as Uni of Copenhagen press release, misrepresented two glacial studies as well as providing false data on global CO2 concentrations twice. Not a good effort and definitely misleading, deceptive and erroneous.
It seems that Heartland and The Galileo Movement have much in common and most of it is unscientific.
00
YAWN!
00
So “sillyfilly” I imagine that you are the same vacuous cretin that also posts your drivel on Andrew Bolt’s Blog.
“sillyfilly of Gosford” I see you are STILL attempting to scare everybody with this global warming FRAUD.
How are you CHILDREN feeling?
God help them!
Your unfounded FEARS are going to make your children SUICIDAL & MANIC DEPRESSIVE.
That will be on your conscience.
You are guilty of CHILD ABUSE and a DANGER to your children!
It won’t be too long before we read about your family in the newspaper, just like this one…..
Baby shot over global warming fears:-
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,20797,26793969-952,00.html?from=public_rss
00
Jo – the low number for Heartland doesn’t grab attention in the table because it’s the only one with a decimal place, e.g. putting its dollar sign virtually in line with the one above for over 100x the amount. If you added “.0” to all the other numbers, the orders-of-magnitude differences to the other organisations would visually stand out.
00
Nice observation. HTML isn’t the nicest language to work with for formatting. What we can so easily do in word with a tab character or in C with something like %5.2f to ensure all numbers line up on the correct column requires more fiddling in pure HTML to get there.
But it does make the differences in the numbers stand out more. It was one of the things we got hammered on when turning in out output in my programming courses.
00
Thanks. Good point. I’ve got rid of that pitiful decimal. It’s better!
Bonza 🙂
Jo
00
From Australian Climate Madness:
00
Here’s the relevant link for folks:
http://heartland.org/press-releases/2012/02/15/heartland-institute-responds-stolen-and-fake-documents
00
From DeSmogBlog:
Heartland Confirms that it Mistakenly Emailed Internal Documents
The Heartland Institute has confirmed in a prepared statement that it mistakenly emailed its board materials to an anonymous third party – confirming the source of the documents released here on the DeSmogBlog yesterday.
Heartland then goes on allege that one of the documents (the Climate Strategy) is a fake.
The DeSmogBlog has reviewed that Strategy document and compared its content to other material we have in hand. It addresses five elements:
The Increased Climate Project Fundraising material is reproduced in and confirmed by Heartland’s own budget.
The “Global Warming Curriculum for K-12 Classrooms” is also a Heartland budget item and has been confirmed independently by the author, Dr. David Wojick.
The Funding for Parallel Organizations; Funding for Selected Individuals Outside Heartland are both reproduced and confirmed in the Heartland budget. And Anthony Watts has confirmed independently the payments in Expanded Climate Communications.
And of course Heartland is quite openly reacting to the news(from the AGE):
“In its statement, the Heartland Institute apologised to its donors for allowing their identities to be revealed, and asked news organisations to stop linking to them.
“The individuals who have commented so far on these documents did not wait for Heartland to confirm or deny the authenticity of the documents,” its statement said.
“In fact the Herald sought comment from the Heartland Institute about the content and veracity of the documents yesterday, eight hours before the newspaper’s deadline, and received no comment. Written questions sent to all 14 of the Heartland board members at 12.30pm yesterday are also yet to receive a response from the organisation”
Ah yes, this will be bigger that when the coldaholics went on the “Climategate” rampage and got well and truely fracked.
(You are not up to date on this one and here is why:UPDATE: Heartland Documents Stolen and key one is Fake. No “insider” leak.) CTS
(You and them are being exposed as warmist drones lacking critical thinking skills) CTS
00
Oh dear, there goes the neighborhood.
This silly nag is a troll over at Bolt’s…best ignored.
00
Good to see your scientific competence on display?
(Good to see that you will ignore who funds Desmog blog and Joe Rohmm you silly guy!) CTS
00
Another YAWN!
00
You talk of scientific competence and quote DeSmogBlog…..
ROFL…..
00
Ah , dopey donkey is on the GetUp trace again. !!
RETARD !!!
00
“sillyfilly”, please share with us all here YOUR Personal Scientific Qualifications……..
00
Boring……
Get a life!
Clearly from the number of non Nonsensical posts you make on Andrew Bolts Blog you are in need of one!
00
Some are willing to believe anything. It must be a symptom of the condition I like to call thermophobic hypochondriasis.
00
Well I receive no money or in kind from anyone for climate related work. Indeed I risk losing the work I do have. Therefore I do not comment under my real name, which I’d prefer if I could.
Rather, I am outraged by the debasement of the sciences I love by these charlatans of the so-called consensus. Especially when they behave like petty bullies in the school playground.
And this pack of distortions from the left wing media is just that.
00
So Jo, tell us. How money have you received from Heartland?
00
Why does it matter if she received any money?
Why don’t you just look At the information she presents and evaluate it for accuracy your self?
PS: She is much more accurate than any of the warmers I have found. All the warmers seem to be able to do is say there was a flood, therefore man’s CO2 caused it. Glaciers are melting therefore man’s CO2 caused it (even after shown that they melted faster before CO2). A polar bear drowned, therefore man’s CO2 caused the arctic ice to melt. Then there is the little matter of the USHCN showing cooling since the 1930 before applying adjustments which made it show warming!
Thanks
JK
00
“Jeremy C”, please tell us all what funds YOU have received from GETUP or other groups who promote the global warming FRAUD……..
00
“How money have you received from Heartland?”
What I want to know is what the f**k is “how money”????
00
Jeremy
I gave you a “thumbs up” because I assume you know Jo gets $bupkis from Heartland, and were thus mocking the fools who make comparisons between the small amounts it passes out and the grotesque sacks of gold thrown about by Warmism Sponsors.
I’m right, aren’t I?
00
And how would you know. It could be a ‘trick’.
(It is from the Heartland website who made the statement) CTS
00
A trick? You mean Al Gore’s crockumentary? That green carpetbagger has made millions off this scam while buying beach front property. So much for the perils of rising sea levels! When that piece of green pond scum or any of his ilk practice what they preach will be thee day hell freezes over!
00
Maybe Jeremy means ‘trick’ as in how you manipulate climate data?
00
It was obvious from the amateurish use of warmista buzz phrases and cant in the “document”. I’m sure it all sounded coherent to the idiot who wrote it, but it’s patent stupidity to anyone familiar with debased Warmism Newspeak.
00
I support of action against anthropogenic climate change, but I agree with the argument here. Many greens try too hard to paint environmentalists as a besieged minority when they’re not. Many people involved in the climate fight, on both sides, don’t know much about the issue they’re involved in.
00
You are thus supporting the impoverishment unto death of a sizeable majority of the planet. Get educated about what such “action” actually involves.
Sucker.
00
The BBC’s Richard Black makes a demonstratably incorrect statement about WUWT and reputational risk.:
BBC:
“Further funding will go to climate blogger and former meteorologist Anthony Watts for a web-based project aiming to demonstrate problems in the US network of temperature monitoring stations – an issue whose irrelevance to the big questions of climate change was emphatically demonstrated last year by the Berkeley Earth Project, which found station quality was not a factor in modern measurements of global warming.”
ie the money was nothing of the sort, it was clearly described as a project for making public weather data more easily and accessibly available to the public
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17048991
maybe it is time for the lawyers, Richards predjudices seem to be at work. this is misrepresentation and potentially reputationally damaging to WUWT
Lucihttp://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/tell-me-whats-horrible-about-this/a’s:
The documents state (pdf) that in January his company ItWorks/IntelliWeather was paid $44,000 to “create a new website devoted to accessing the new temperature data from NOAA’s web site and converting them into easy-to-understand graphs that can be easily found and understood by weathermen and the general interested public”. A total of $88,000 (pdf) is expected to be handed to Watts for the project by the end of 2012.
———————-
BBC – I do hope you have good lawyers…
00
2nd link: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/tell-me-whats-horrible-about-this/
00
$O ? Christy,Spencer,Douglass,Lindzen et al have not received government funding?
00
Jo,
You forgot the “Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute”
The GCCS Institute is a massive boondoggle that Kevin Rudd set up as a monument to his vanity. Already more than $100,000,000 of Aussie taxpayer money has been blown with absolutely no results, most of it overseas.
http://www.ret.gov.au/resources/gccsi/Pages/default.aspx
When even the ABC 7:30 report starts asking hard question you know things are really crook…
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2012/s3430889.htm
00
CCS is insane pseudoscience.
00
KK
Should fit right in then with the CAGW standard practice -spray a lot of money around with little forethought or business acumen, and then hope and pray that enough money is sprayed around indiscriminately that it might just do something positive by random chance. They show such intellectual rigour, these acolytes of the faith! One day, the profligate waste might well become public knowledge, and the recriminations then may be more “catastrophic” for the alarmists than any non-existent man-made warming could ever have been.
It is also plainly obvious that many of those charged with schemes (Solyndra, Wind farms, et al) to generate renewable energy alternatives and offsetting by capturing “Carbon” are sinking in a mire of incompetence, economic mismanagement and even plain poor maths skills- it seems many of these CEO’s and VP’s of these renewables companies merely feign expertise and competence, probably because so speculative and nascent is this area that it has become a prime target for the huckster, the charlatan, and the sponger. “Disappointments” as described above are the norm, not the exception, and that ultimately will be what runs the Green Limousine completely off the road and into a tree. Can’t come quick enough, then perhaps some sensible and “sustainable” environmental management might begin to occur, within the sphere of sound economics and proper industry management principles.
00
The best CCS is to give the local kids $5 an hour to go out planting trees.
Why sequester a precious resource like CO2 which we need for plant growth and ocean stabilization.
CO2 helps counter the Ca ion buildup in the ocean which would quickly become alkaline if we reduced CO2 as outlined by Kev the Sequestrator.
00
News flash: the oceans are and have been alkaline for billions of years. Dissolved calcium, doncha know?
00
Sorry Brian
That should have been, more correctly
“CO2 helps counter the Ca ion buildup in the ocean which would quickly become MORE alkaline ”
🙂
slack eh?
00
All you anti-warmists should take a cold shower and learn a few things.
[Ross, if left to you Warmists, cold showers will be the norm.] ED
It’s called Karma. What goes around comes around. The shoes now on your foot.
Even before these documents came out I have always been aware that all Heartland exists for is a disinformation machine of ultra right political ideology. It is not there to even support science.
And why under God’s Earth would one go there for science or even bother with the junk science they put out. It’s political think tank with a clearly stated agenda.
Jo – your viewpoints are cut outs.
You refuse to look into the latest science findings even though you are a good scientist yourself.
I know you are busy with “other things” – but is not about time you returned to the boring science?
—————–
Dearest Ross, have you actually posted the paper I’ve been asking for for the last 2 years? Sorry, but a video link to the Rocky Horror Show in your next comment is not quite what I was looking for. Do ask your docs to increase your meds, they don’t seem to be working. Please stop wasting space on these threads. You wouldn’t know “science” if it fell on you. Heartland support the scientific method far better than the NAS does. – Jo
00
So.
Now that the Evil CO2 Demon is no longer, the IPCC led machine has a problem:
there is no problem!!
Solution, as predicted by many, shift focus to a new point of conflict: in this case funding
of people opposed to bad science.
Actually I think we deserve MORE funding as defenders of something worthwhile: Real Science.
00
Hi Jo,
So you want a paper that answers your very question all neatly rolled into one thing. I’m afraid disparate lines of evidence combines to form an irrefutable picture in hindsight and foresight of Global Warming. Combine all those studies properly and you have your answer.
It is much like any examination of anything. Proof for or against is not founded on one premise let alone political alliance or the misleading allegation of money to make science a bender from reality like Heartland.
Tell you what Jo, have you or your partner ever travelled to the US and even talked to the real climate scientists you ridicule everyday right here? Made up your mind right! We live in a global community. We should all act accordingly.
I grant one thing here – Climategate initially rattled me. But after major investigation and sitting down with real climate scientists I have become very much aware of the very selective quote mining that went on. It is a sham and you know some of it in part to be true.
I know where you go for your information and it aren’t the science centres in America – is it?
Kind of cute to have a small organisation like Heartland revealed like this?
Science is what it is. It never rests on its laurels. It moves on and so should you.
Now you tell me you want evidence going back two years. I have clearly posted papers that even Anthony is discussing.
Please do not ever make the claim that you are a science based web site.
———————
REPLY: OK, Ross, you admit then you have no peer reviewed observations supporting the IPCC assumptions that positive feedback will amplify warming above 1.2 degrees to something higher? I’ve searched the whole WWW for it. I’ve asked some of the lead authors of IPCC docs. They can’t find it either. Please don’t claim you are a science based commentator.. Jo
00
(Your legendary inability to decently stay on topic is well known) CTS
Hi Jo,
Dangerous human-made interference with climate: a GISS modelE study
Can’t find something? Lets see if your partner can take on the following scientists and refute them.
[Ross, I’m not going to ask him to waste his time discussing a five year old model study with a guy who thinks argument from authority is a scientific point. If you are smart enough to figure out his email you can ask him yourself. – Jo]
J. Hansen1,2, M. Sato2, R. Ruedy3, P. Kharecha2, A. Lacis1,4, R. Miller1,5, L. Nazarenko2, K. Lo3, G. A. Schmidt1,4, G. Russell1, I. Aleinov2, S. Bauer2, E. Baum6, B. Cairns5, V. Canuto1, M. Chandler2, Y. Cheng3, A. Cohen6, A. Del Genio1,4, G. Faluvegi2, E. Fleming7, A. Friend8, T. Hall1,5, C. Jackman7, J. Jonas2, M. Kelley8, N. Y. Kiang1, D. Koch2,9, G. Labow7, J. Lerner2, S. Menon10, T. Novakov10, V. Oinas3, Ja. Perlwitz5, Ju. Perlwitz2, D. Rind1,4, A. Romanou1,4, R. Schmunk3, D. Shindell1,4, P. Stone11, S. Sun1,11, D. Streets12, N. Tausnev3, D. Thresher4, N. Unger2, M. Yao3, and S. Zhang2
Lets see if your web site could ever hope to overturn the findings of the following Universities and Climate Centres.
[Yawn – oh look, there are so many scientists, well it must be right then. Oh but wait, we can name 31,500 scientists. Sorry. It’s a logical fallacy, and you still lose. -Jo]
1 NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY, USA
2 Columbia University Earth Institute, New York, NY, USA
3 Sigma Space Partners LLC, New York, NY, USA
4 Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
5 Department of Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
6 Clean Air Task Force, Boston, MA, USA
7 NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, USA
8 Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement, Orme des Merisiers, Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex, France
9 Department of Geology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA
10 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA
11 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA
12 Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL, USA
Received: 23 October 2006 – Published in Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss.: 5 December 2006
Revised: 29 March 2007 – Accepted: 15 April 2007 – Published: 7 May 2007
[Well that’s it. Proof by acronym. What could possibly go wrong? Jo]
We investigate the issue of “dangerous humanmade interference with climate” using simulations with GISS modelE driven by measured or estimated forcings for 1880–2003 and extended to 2100 for IPCC greenhouse gas scenarios as well as the “alternative” scenario of Hansen and Sato (2004). Identification of “dangerous” effects is partly subjective, but we find evidence that added global warming of more than 1C above the level in 2000 has effects that may be highly disruptive. The alternative scenario, with peak added forcing 1.5 W/m2 in 2100, keeps further global warming under 1C if climate sensitivity is 3C or less for doubled CO2. The alternative scenario keeps mean regional seasonal warming within 2 (standard deviations) of 20th century variability, but other scenarios yield regional changes of 5–10, i.e. mean conditions outside the range of local experience. We conclude that a CO2 level exceeding about 450 ppm is “dangerous”, but reduction of non-CO2 forcings can provide modest relief on the CO2 constraint. We discuss three specific sub-global topics: Arctic climate change, tropical storm intensification, and ice sheet stability. We suggest that Arctic climate change has been driven as much by pollutants (O3, its precursor CH4, and soot) as by CO2, offering hope that dual efforts to reduce pollutants.
Correspondence to: J. Hansen
(jhansen@giss.nasa.gov)
Slow CO2 growth could minimize Arctic change. Simulated recent ocean warming in the region of Atlantic hurricane formation is comparable to observations, suggesting that greenhouse gases (GHGs) may have contributed to a trend toward greater hurricane intensities. Increasing GHGs cause significant warming in our model in submarine regions of ice shelves and shallow methane hydrates, raising concern about the potential for accelerating sea level rise and future positive feedback from methane release. Growth of non-CO2 forcings has slowed in recent years, but CO2 emissions are now surging well above the alternative scenario. Prompt actions to slow CO2 emissions and decrease non-CO2 forcings are required to achieve the low forcing of the alternative scenario.
Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
Genius – a one off scientist’s statement of Dr Hansen – hardly! The number of scientists working with Super Computer analysis of both historical data and projected data is astounding. Runs rings around your toy Excel Spreadsheet examples. As if David is the only one around the ridges who has engineered some calculating software. Come on Jo can you guess what I do?
[No Ross, but whatever it is I don’t want to pay you for it — Jo]
It is therefore crucial you understand one fact – if the Arctic Circle goes iceless within the next ten years for a period of weeks/months and secondly the elevator up and down of climate still trends higher in ten years time you both who stand behind this web site are going to have to apologise. The hypothesis (WHICH IT INDEED IS – YOU HAVE NO PROOF or the computing power to even imply or say that) of weak climate sensitivity is totally miscalculated. It is you who has chosen the path of “belief” and blind faith in that hypothesis that could be completely wrong. What a train wreck that will be.
[Oh Ross, I don’t even need a PC, my ThrustMaster Calculator (it really is called that) has enough computing power to tell me that 7,000 quintillion joules of energy are missing. Argo can’t find them. Thanks to technological advances, incredibly, at home, I too can ask a question that most definitely implies your experts are b-grade charlatans who don’t know what they are doing. Sorry about that. Jo.]
It’s a tough world out there – and that’s just one little paper I’ve thrown on the table. There are hundreds more of studies independent of each other. Much like a great work written by many authors it forms the “bible” will and testament of current climate change as we know it. Attacking one author does not undermine the science fact – the globe is warming at an alarming rate.
You can attack the science as much you like – by the time you get through just one paper there will be 100 more science papers released supporting Global Warming. You can cherry pick over stuff as much as you like. That’s science – it is the facts that are cruel to those who cannot accept just how confronting they are.
[No Ross, no you can’t keep wasting my time posting 100’s of loser papers based on models that we know don’t work. The best paper you could find is so weak you have nothing. No observations. Just faulty models. Don’t bother posting any more papers unless it might actually be THE one. Mods please snip waste-of-time argument-from-authority bluster. Enough is enough. He has had a turn. Jo]
00
Hi Jo,
Please do not publish this. This is a very brief reply.
There is nothing stopping you or your partner holding “quiet” conversations with good climate scientists.
I would have thought this is the best way forward instead of pouring through the papers second hand.
If I had the resources I certainly would take you both on a global tour on the real status of climate.
Take Care,
Ross J.
[sorry Ross, the world needs to know] ED
———————————————————–
REPLY: Ross, as I’ve told you before we have had conversations with lead authors of the IPCC. We’ve also offered to publicly debate them. They won’t debate. Pitman and I emailed starting in 2008. I asked if I could publish his emails. He said no. Your science gods are letting you down. I feel sorry for you. They don’t have the answers to the questions that you think they do. If they did, they would have put those answers out there. — Jo
00
Bob Carter’s funding of $18,600pa amounts to just $715 a fortnight, which is only 47% more than the single dole of $486 a fortnight. Quell trough et il? Shame on the Age, shame on Fairfax.
00
And it is not even enough to get a loan for a bedroom in one of Gore’s several mansions.
Metaphorically a flea vs an elephant.. and the flea is winning, hands down.
00
Heartland Institute pays (Snipped) Bob Carter $1600 a month.
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/scientist-accepts-cash-for-climate-20120215-1t7ho.html
Read and try and think for once!
(Jo already pointed that out in her blog post.Try reading it next time) CTS
00
I make $1800 a month, and I work in a —greenhouse—! So what?
00
So, Heartland are confirming that the documents obtained by “whoever” are real and authentic:
But that they may have been altered before release, and that at least one is an outright fake.
Will be interesting to see where this goes. Much surprisement at the fear, uncertainty, doubt, defense so rapidly put up by Heartland. Who would a thunk that from an organisation with their history.
00
Ah … the new version of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion
Perhaps we can dub it “The Protocols of the Deniers of Heartland”
00
The only problem I have is that The Heartland Institute does not have more money to fight this scam. Only an idiot would think that they received money from someone other than those whose interest were similar. I wish big oil would break out their check books and spend some big money fighting this scam. If the Heartland Institute and Blogs like Jo’s can have such a dramatic impact on a shoestring budget imagine what they could do with the kind of money the Eco loons receive from their wingnut supporters!
00
Hear Hear!
The time to put up, nut up or shut up is Now!
00
Focus in a bit more on DeSmogBlog. Who is one of their top bloggers, and had been for all but three months of that site’s existence? Anti-skeptic book author Ross Gelbspan. The very same person I covered at TheDC in 2010, “Is the ‘Columbo of climate change’ someone who would rather avoid Columbo-like questions?”
Our AGW-promoter friends only have one fallback position to their advice about ignoring skeptics, and that is such folk are corrupt. It’s a shell game to distract the public from finding out all the faults with the IPCC. We all should be looking far harder at why they stick to such a pathetic tactic. For more on that whole problem, please see my latest article, “Monumental fault in manmade global warming notion hiding in plain sight“.
00
15 Feb: Washington Post: Federal funds flow to clean-energy firms with Obama administration ties
By Carol D. Leonnig and Joe Stephens
Sanjay Wagle was a venture capitalist and Barack Obama fundraiser in 2008, rallying support through a group he headed known as Clean Tech for Obama.
Shortly after Obama’s election, he left his California firm to join the Energy Department, just as the administration embarked on a massive program to stimulate the economy with federal investments in clean-technology firms…
During the next three years, the department provided $2.4 billion in public funding to clean-energy companies in which Wagle’s former firm, Vantage Point Venture Partners, had invested, a Washington Post analysis found. Overall, the Post found that $3.9 billion in federal grants and financing flowed to 21 companies backed by firms with connections to five Obama administration staffers and advisers…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/venture-capitalists-play-key-role-in-obamas-energy-department/2011/12/30/gIQA05raER_story.html
00
15 Feb: Bloomberg: Simon Clark: Gore Likens Carbon to Subprime Debt in Plan to Repair Capitalism
Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore said investors in oil and gas companies who ignore the cost of emitting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are making a mistake similar to those who invested in subprime mortgages.
“The value of the subprime mortgages was based on a false assumption,” Gore said yesterday in an interview. “In almost exactly the same way, the value of all of these carbon fuel reserves is based on a similarly absurd assumption.”
Gore made the analogy as Generation Investment Management LLP, the asset manager he founded with former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) executive David Blood, published a five-point plan titled “Sustainable Capitalism” to reform the investment industry. They want the proposals to help combat climate change and poverty as well as boost profit in the long term…
“The bitter experience that the subprime mortgages caused should be a reminder that stranded assets have the potential for doing a great deal of damage,” Gore said in a video link between Generation’s New York and London offices. The firm manages about $6.5 billion.
“These subprime carbon assets have an asserted value based on the assumption that it’s perfectly OK to put 90 million tons of global warming pollution into the atmosphere every 24 hours,” he said. “Actually it’s not.”…
Gore’s comparison of carbon and subprime debt comes a month after a group of U.K. investors and environmental campaigners wrote to Bank of England Governor Mervyn King urging a probe into whether the U.K.’s holdings of investments in greenhouse gas-emitting industries poses a risk to financial stability…
Gore and Blood (OR BLOOD AND GORE TO EVERYONE ELSE) said adoption of their proposals was necessary to restore public faith in capitalism, which they said had been eroded during the financial crisis, in which taxpayer funds were used to bail out banks and insurance companies…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-16/gore-likens-carbon-to-subprime-debt-in-plan-to-repair-capitalism.html
15 Feb: PDF: Generation Investment Management LLP: Sustainable Capitalism
http://www.efinancialnews.com/share/media/downloads/2012/02/4070000441.pdf
00
Pat;
I gave you thumbs-down because it’s not clear that you understand what a fool Gore is making of himself with all that bluster. Please clarify.
00
Must be hurting bad – the skeptics are all biting like a big Marlin.
00
Where can people donate to the heartland institute?
With their feeble budget, they will need help to defend themselves against this attack.
00
Just goes to show that doubt is a lot cheaper to make than genuine understanding.
Did anyone think other than that organisations like Heartland and Austrlia’s own Centre for Independent Study and Institute of Public Affairs are lobbyists for right wing causes? As such, it is unsurprising that they fund people who agree with their aims and have a public profile.
After all, blogs don’t just run themselves.
(Do you know who funds Dr. Rohmm and Desmog blog?) CTS
00
ROTFL.
Johnny I reckon you just earned every cent of your last CenterLink check, mate. Priceless.
00
John, Isn’t it funny that AGW so perfectly fits the worldview of socialist academics like yourself? And that of scientists on the public payroll who think running up hundreds of billions of dollars per annum in taxes is of little consequence? Especially when the AGW hypothesis has been around for 20 years (or 120, depending on when you start measuring)and it looks more likely with every passing year that the CO2-CAGW “link” is defective. THAT’s why the pressure should be on you (and the IPCC information monopoly) to DISPROVE the skeptical position, not on us to accept a wealth-destroying cure for a problem that that probably does not exist. In the real world (most of which has rejected it), climate catastrophe looks more remote by the year, when there is growing evidence of data manipulation by scientists with a massive conflict of interest: they’re penalised with loss of funding if climate variability turns out to be the main driver and endlessly rewarded if they continue to insist on a looming disaster – even if it never happens. Having spent all my working life being paid to observe the human race, I’m always available to wager a substantial amount on the outcome.Carbon, hydrogen and oxygen are marvellous life-giving elements and our gratitude to our ancestors for exploiting them will outlast this glimpse of the human race’s dark side.
00
Academic.. John.. no way !!!
Oh, OK, maybe an arts or social science major.. certainly has ZERO scientific nouse
00
“”John Brookes says:
As such, it is unsurprising that they fund people who agree with their aims and have a public profile.””
Like “tobacco-scientists” John? Most of the scientists peddling the “consensus view” of climate change have, directly or indirectly, vested interests in the “science” in the form of reputation, position, pension, and future funding of their academic and/or business endeavors.
Powerful financial interests both fund and exploit the “climate change” consensus for make-a-buck hustles like the carbon carbon tax rip-off and crony-socialist enterprises like Clean Energy Finance Corporation that take the tax-payer to the cleaners in the name of carbon-reduction.
What about the “climate change” scare stories serving the brave-new-world grand designs of the “green economy”. Propagander as evil as any that led to re-education camps, gulags and killing fields. Great-Leaps-Forward that are part-and-parcel of any lefty, thinking-big schemes to re-engineer humanity.
Many of the most prominent promoters of the “consensus” are grotesque examples of carbon-piggery hypocrisy–what with their sprawling mansions, private-jets, carbon-belching Antarctic science-expedition yachts, and jet-set carbon-be-damned lifestyles.
As well as,the remissions reduction carbon eco-hypocrites who make do, for example, with blow-out, high-carbon swill-slurping yearly feeding-frenzies at the IPCC’s party. As it moves annually from one fun-in-the-sun tourist trap to another. Our involvement in one of the IPCC’s carbon extravaganzas costs the taxpayer more than the whole of the annual “Denier” budget.
Why should I fund the public profile of non-science?
00
Not to forget the 10s of billions almost instantly scammed from the EU ETS carbon dioxide trading scheme, and zero detectable effect (now or ever) from the deals done — other than to kill local industry in favour of ramshackle overseas replacements.
00
The only thing that runs itself, John, is your mouth! A perpetual motion machines that apparently functions without input from that 1200 cc. brain of yours!
00
Eddy, “1200 cc”? You are being very generous!
00
Actually, they pretty much do if you have plenty of volunteer help.
Only in university, government and non-profit land do blogs and websites cost money to run.
I see that the APH Senate website is over budget and past deadlines, and has cost $7 million so far.
For $7 million dollars I could build an entire company. Virgin Blue was launched with $4 million dollars. Facebook was started with less than $150,000.
00
making it up as they go along, as per usual…
15 Feb: Bloomberg: Ewa Krukowska: Carbon Traders Group Urges Overhaul of EU Cap-and-Trade Plan
The European Union should change its carbon-trading plan by introducing a mechanism to allow changing the bloc’s pollution cap to reflect economic conditions, the International Emissions Trading Association said.
While the world’s biggest cap-and-trade program is working as intended, fragmented policies are undermining its price signal at the time when an economic slowdown weighs on the market, IETA said in a statement today…
“IETA wants a system to change caps, as soon as possible, consistent with stakeholder engagement and full understanding of what’s being proposed,” the associations’ president Henry Derwent said in a phone interview. “What we’re asking for is a reexamination of a system which would essentially index the baseline and make this more like an indexed system.”…
Prices for carbon permits have fallen 46 percent in the past year as industrial output in Europe declined…
“We have to regard it as likely that between now and 2020 something will happen that will require some re-examination of the ETS directive,” Derwent said. “The system just is not seen to be stable in terms of producing good responses to all the priorities that people have wanted from it in the phase of significant economic disruptions.” …
***While the Australian program of rolling target could be taken into account in such an overhaul, it has some disadvantages from the point of view of market certainty, the association said.
“An alternative, probably less intrusive way, that should also be assessed is systemic recalibration by which the baseline would be automatically adjusted periodically according to well- known and widely available indicators,” it said.
While such a model would be more complex than a fixed cap, the alternative of sticking with intact targets amid a radical change in the economic environment “is clearly causing problems,” according to IETA.
Should the EU decide to temporarily withhold allowances to alleviate oversupply from 2013, a plan considered by the European Parliament, it should ensure permits are set aside in an “objective, predictable and transparent manner,” IETA said.
EU regulators should ensure that rules allowing a roll-over of allowances to the next trading period are not changed and reassure market participants that such “interventions” are unique, according to IETA.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-15/carbon-traders-group-urges-overhaul-of-eu-cap-and-trade-plan.html
00
14 Feb: SmartCompany: Sophie Vorrath: Carbon tax countdown: How SMEs can get a head start
Tap into assistance programs
All these energy efficiency and low-carbon makeovers don’t come for free, of course, so SMEs will also need to familiarise themselves with the range of grants, loans, rebates, tax deductions and other government incentives available to them as part of the Government’s Clean Energy Future package, not to mention the various state-based initiatives and incentives available too…
According to Energy Matters, the manufacturing sector will be able to tap into the $800 million Clean Technology Investment Program, which will provide grants to support investments in energy-efficient capital equipment and low-pollution technologies.
The food and manufacturing sectors, meanwhile, can apply for grants under the Clean Technology Food and Foundries Investment Program; a competitive merit-based $200 million initiative to help businesses to invest in improved energy and/or carbon efficiency for production processes and products.
Energy Matters also points to the Federal Government’s Solar Credits scheme as something small businesses can take advantage of. “For just a few thousand dollars, even an entry-level rooftop solar panel array can slash power bills by a significant amount,” says the website, adding that the Solar Credits rebate will also be further reduced from July 1 this year.
SMEs in Sydney and Perth who become signatories to the Australia-wide tenant energy efficiency program CitySwitch Green Office program (and who complete a baseline NABERS Energy rating assessment within three months of joining) can apply for a rebate up to $1,000. The program also offers businesses assistance in documenting their energy baseline, and offers a range of free resources to assist with energy efficiency measures, including toolkits, case studies and regular information sessions with sustainable business leaders…
http://www.smartcompany.com.au/tax/048191-carbon-tax-countdown-how-smes-can-get-a-head-start.html
SmartCompany publisher is an ABC darling, Amanda Gome:
2009: mUmBRELLA: ABC to relaunch opinion site Unleashed
In a move that will put the ABC directly up against News Ltd and Fairfax’s online comment sites, the broadcaster is relaunching ABC Unleashed to form part of a new commentary and analysis site that will for the first time aggregate the public broadcaster’s commentry content as well as feature original material…
The merger of Smartcompany and Crikey’s owner Private Media Partners, is also underway. The new entity will be headed by Smartcompany CEO Amanda Gome.
http://mumbrella.com.au/abc-to-relaunch-opinion-site-unleashed-11971
00
Solyndragate….
Don’t forget about the US$535 billion President Obama gave to Solyndra a solar panel business that was already doomed when it received the questionable bail out. Now Solyndra is bankrupt and the FBI is investigating the Obama Administration for corruption and the possibility that Solyndra execs had promised to funnel some of that loan money back to Obama’s pals as political funding or worse. Strangely the key players in the Obama admin have already resigned ahead of the investigation…. The whole affair is an example of Green corruption at its most venal.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/2011/09/solyndra-scandal-exposes-lie-government-investment/118393
SunPowergate….
Twice as much waste and corruption as Solyndra!
http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=9269
Jeez, Obama and his cronies have pumped 1.735 billion of taxpayer money on failing solar energy scams to create 15 jobs?
This level of brazen corruption might well go down in history along side the Teapot Dome Scandal as the biggest in American history. Accept that the American media is mostly covering up for Obama.
Worse, the Department of Justice, the people who might be expected to looking into Solyndragate and SunPowergate have been corrupted themselves by Obama officials from Eric Holder, the Attorney General on down. There are at least half a dozen scandals going on at the DOJ now. This just popped up a few days ago:
Uh huh.
00
Million . Millions, not Billions of tax dollars given to Solyndra.
You’re welcome George.
00
Meow???
Thanks. Kitty Kat
PS, watch the toxo! 😉
00
Welcome to Chicago style political power grabs. Anyone who knew where Obama came from and associated with is not in the least astonished by this. The media here is a branch of the DNC and anyone outside their gravy train knows it. The seven richest counties in the United States all geographically touch Washington DC. It matters not one iota who wins the next round. Obama will just bring the inevitable faster, let him take the blame he deserves. As someone once remarked, the solution to high prices is high prices. Well… the solution to big government is big government. The Greeks and the rest of Europe are learning this the hard way just like the Pilgrims in the US and the Soviets did.
If any of you are really interested in stopping this, look at the list of funding at the top of this page and FIND OUT WHERE THE MONEY WENT, they just collected the cash.
Therein lives your scandal.
00
I don’t think its the turnover that is critical when comparing a climate change fund, and a tax-exempt charity.
It’s the use of those funds to attack established science, and schools curriculums.
00
So in summary:
Organisation’s actions agree with my viewpoint = GOOD.
Organisation’s actions disagree with my viewpoint = EVIL.
That about sum up your ethical take on the matter?
00
I actually believe this is hilarious. And, this works out quite well for the skeptics.
It is pretty clear by now that the document “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy,” was faked.
The only question is who, if anyone, knew before it was published? And, if they didn’t know, then doesn’t this clearly show they lack the necessary critical thinking skills to be commenting on climate science? That they’re easily duped? It comes back to the question so often asked…… are alarmists intentionally deceiving the public or are they really that stupid?
00
[It is pretty clear by now that the document “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy,” was faked.]
Interesting that Desmog took the time to correlate what was in the supposedly “faked” document with other sources.
Like any event of this kind, people are digging, looking for connections, and considering what new info is made clear.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the Heartland mob may come to regret declaring fake quite so fast.
00
If Heartland is right that the strategy document is a fake and the ‘leak’ was due to a false flag operation then this whole thing may misfire badly on the consensus side. They sound keen to get into a court, which is interesting.
Looks similar to the Hodges/Sattler Australia Day case, which may yet play out in court too. The NoTW inquiry in the UK is pertinent too, since there is widespread fury over unauthorised acquisition of confidential information by journo’s. Seducing an email by false pretenses is in a similar category.
00
I doubt that they would have so quickly if they weren’t entirely sure. Notice how they haven’t declared any of the other ones a fake. Further, the one declared fake is unique and a few ways.
00
Here’s an interesting take on that issue.
Amazing the metadata that most people dont know is on documents these days. Wonder if there is any truth to it??
00
Amazing what one can do with a hex editor isn’t it? You should get out more, any competent programmer can tell you that metadata doesn’t mean a damn thing.
00
Lol, have you downloaded the PDFs? The fake is plainly a fake. Look at the properties…. that thing was altered and then scanned in. A simple comparison to the others would tell you that it was altered.
00
The metadata is starting to look very interesting Catamon. This stunt is going to be very painful for someone. Why, we could be linking to even Guardian and NYT articles about it by the time they’re through with the data stashes. Andrew Revkin is already cautiously eating his pieus humblii. Email metadata next, heh.
00
Like i said Bruce, i wonder if there is any truth in the statements made so far. Interesting comment on the metadata by Robert.
Well, maybe we will have to see whether anything actually goes to court over this and how things develop over the next couple of days.
If nothing else its certainly gotten all the usual suspects in a lather.
00
Both of the above.
00
You can tell that document is a forgery because the grammar is sh*t.
Why the first and last commas?
“At the moment, this funding goes primarily to Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), Fred Singer ($5,000 per month, plus expenses), Robert Carter ($1,667 per month), and a number of other individuals, but we will consider expanding it, if funding can be found.”
A colon : should have been used to precede the list. The sentence should have been broken in two.
There’s a lot more.
The hackers/pranksters were kids and they showed their nativity by doctoring that document. The leak was already embarrassing but they weakened the impact by doing that. They should have known it was always going to be revealed as fake.
00
why not include the $54 billion of taxpayer subsidies for NUCLEAR, which the Greenies hate. have always been amused how the CAGW alarmists ignore Hansen and Monbiot’s nuclear advocacy. are some taxpayer subsidies okay?
16 Feb: WSJ: Obama Unveils Loan Guarantees for Nuclear Plant
By HENRY J. PULIZZI And CHRISTINE BUURMA
Under the loan-guarantee program, the government promises to assume a company’s debt obligations if it defaults on debt incurred for the projects. Because new nuclear reactors cost billions of dollars to develop, the loan guarantees can be a key step for energy companies that plan to undertake such projects…
The U.S. Department of Energy has the authority for $18.5 billion in loan guarantees. The administration’s fiscal-2011 budget request seeks to triple that amount to more than $54 billion.
Energy Secretary Steven Chu, speaking at a press briefing Tuesday, declined to say when the second nuclear loan guarantee might be issued. Along with Southern Co., Scana Corp., Constellation Energy Group Inc. and NRG Energy Inc. were on a short list of companies with projects still in the running for federal loan backing as of May.
“We’re working with the applicants as fast as we can to get through these processes,” Mr. Chu said.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704804204575069301926799046.html
00
Naivety! Damn you Chrome spell checker.
00
Would like to go on a journey?
Let do the time warp again.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6827163268088648679 [Warning to readers, this really is a video of The Rocky Horror Show. Ross thinks it’s a useful contribution on a thread about science policy. Jo]
Would you buy the book?
Madlands: A Journey To Change The Mind of a Climate Sceptic (MUP, release date April 27 2012)
Anna Rose, environmental activist since fourteen and co-founder of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition, goes on a journey around the world to get to the truth, former Liberal Party powerbroker Nick Minchin in tow. She’s on a mission: to see if she can change the mind of one skeptic and with him, the views of a nation confused about the science behind the biggest threat humanity has ever faced.
Through the eyes of one young Australian, we’re invited to step back and look at the bigger picture of what we know about climate change, and what we don’t. Madlands is part travel story, part scientific exploration, part tale of self-discovery, and part call to arms. It is written to inform, entertain and ultimately to change the debate on climate change in Australia.
————————
REPLY: Madlands indeed. We tried, we showed her all the graphs that matter, but Anna Rose, poor thing, just can’t think. I felt sorry for her doing the job the chickens like Gore, Hansen, and Flannery won’t. Jo
00
Wow, you really do know how to do disdainful and dismissive arrogance don’t you??
00
Well they have been observing you for quite some time now.
00
Time for Jo to come clean on all her funding, and expenses paid trips.
And very magnanimous of her to encourage you all to donate to Heartland especially if the money funnels back to her for trips to Bali, etc.
—————-
REPLY: I’m flattered that you think if someone funded me I could change the weather or the satellite readings (though flattery counts less from the delusional). I have already revealed that my blog has cost me thousands. If I wanted to fly to Bali, I would have signed up for a job writing for a pretend science magazine, or a government funded position pushing propaganda. When you push for Flannery / Jones /Hansen /Mann to reveal their emails, funding, methods and data, I might not laugh at your hypocritical mindless request. Do you think I can change the ARGO data? — Jo
00
Your silence speaks volumes.
————————-
REPLY: Yes freeloader Geoff. When you pay me, you can complain that I don’t reply within the hour. OK? Now if I got some Exxon money I’d be able to pay staff to straighten out your poor reasoning in live time. If you had manners and could reason, you’d be able to post immediately like most of the other commenters. -Jo
00
I guess this is supposed to mean something
to somebody
somewhere.
00
Is vitriol your answer to simple questions ?
(You have earned the replies now you can try impressing us with better comments) CTS
00
“Geoff”, How much money are YOU paid to post your BS here?
00
Geoff;
You can’t really be that much of a goof, can you? Oh, you are? Condolences.
00
From the Heartland PDF (http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/(1-15-2012)%202012%20Fundraising%20Plan.pdf) I quote:
Heartland sponsors the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), an international network of scientists who write and speak out on climate change. Heartland pays a team of scientists approximately $300,000 a year to work on a series of editions of Climate Change Reconsidered, the most comprehensive and authoritative rebuttal of the United Nations’ IPCC reports. Another $88,000 is earmarked for Heartland staff, incremental expenses, and overhead for editing, expense reimbursement for the authors, and marketing.
NIPCC is currently funded by two gifts a year from two foundations, both of them requesting anonymity. In 2012 we plan to solicit gifts from other donors to add to what these two donors are giving in order to cover more of our fixed costs for promoting the first two Climate Change Reconsidered volumes and writing and editing the volume scheduled for release in 2013. We hope to raise $200,000 in 2012.
(You are deliberately ignoring the evidence Jo posted because you are not interested in the evidence presented.Because you prefer the absurdly one sided view of money funding and influence that people like Rohmm and other hypocritical warmthers out there propagate) CTS
————————
REPLY: A big so-what Ross. The Scare-Propaganda team are paid 10000 times as much. You don’t care that some of their donors are anonymous. Who pays you, or is it just a mental defect that keeps you raising mindless ad homs that are an own-goal for your arguments? – Jo
00
“$300,000 a year ”
will not buy you even one of Al Gore’s mansions.
Everyone KNOWS where the real money is in this debate, and its in the pockets of those aiming to gain BIG-TIME from the AGW scam.
The sceptics are ALL on a tiny pittance compared to that.
00
Heck, Andy
Al Gore’s heated swimming pools are worth than that.
00
Mansions? That much won’t buy a small bungalow here in Vancouver, BC. It might buy a mansion in Detroit or some other urban Democrat wasteland, I suppose.
00
Tides: http://www.tides.org/about/financials/
“In 2010, Tides had assets of approximately $267.6 million and managed project and grantmaking activities of approximately $243.5 million, including $86.2 million in financial activities for our fiscally sponsored nonprofit projects and $157.3 million in grantmaking and related activities. Tides also managed $26 million in real-estate related assets committed to the promotion of green nonprofit centers in 2010.”
———-
Thanks Bruce! – Jo
00
Being bad with numbers is obligatory for climate alarmists; as is misleading their largely well meaning but easily duped followers.
An example: Julia Gillard says the carbon tax at $23 per tonne will only affect QANTAS to the tune of about $3.00 per one way flight per person. She implies it is hardly a severe impost which would make QANTAS consider how they might reduce costs anywhere they can. What she didn’t mention is that based on the last 12 months, QANTAS barely managed $5.00 profit per ticket. There’s not a lot of wriggle room adding $3.00 per ticket to their costs.
Bill Shorten says the exchange rate impacts Alcoa more than the Carbon tax will. The Government claim no business is planning to cut jobs or leave Australia because of the carbon tax. And they continuously use the introductory carbon tax at $23.00 per tonne as the basis for all their statements – including how they are going to compensate 9 out of 10 Australians.
What they don’t make clear is that the $23 per tonne is just the starting price. It is expected to grow to a minimum of $130.90 and up to $274.70 per tonne based on their own modelling by 2050. See: http://www.treasury.gov.au/carbonpricemodelling/content/chart_table_data/chapter5.asp
What sensible business faced with such a potential cost increase wouldn’t look at making cuts including shifting as much as possible over seas and cutting staff? I’m not surprised they don’t blame the carbon tax on their cost cutting. We’ve seen what the Government and Unions can do to companies which don’t tow the ALP line.
00
Isn’t it actually illegal now to blame price rises etc on the carbon (sic) tax?
00
Troo, dat.
(But it’s toe the line. Not tow. Think soldiers at attention, not rowboats behind a ship.)
00
Here you go; this one is totally FREE, produced with nobody’s tax dollars or voluntary contributions at all… My agenda is the TRUTH, nothing else.
Ironically enough, the FLAW in the GHE HYPOTHESIS is actually more of an accounting error than a science error. When the energy returns to the surface from the “GHG” you cannot ADD it to the original energy bundle arriving from the Sun and produce a CORRECT alleged “energy budget”. The energy returning from the “GHG” has already travelled once through the system leaving cooling (at the previous location it departed from) in its wake. So we have sequential warming / cooling / warming / cooling events occurring from ONE bundle of energy that came from the Sun. So, one bundle of energy from the Sun simply warms the surface multiple sequential times, since these warming events are followed by equivalent cooling events and are separated by finite time delays YOU CANNOT ADD THEM TOGETHER and get a correct result.
Doing so is the equivalent of creating energy, which you must admit violates the First Law. As a simple analogy; would you add the “brightness” from the sunlight on Monday to the “brightness” from the sunlight on Tuesday and claim (via a computer model of course) that the sunlight on Wednesday would be twice as “bright” as the previous day ????
One of the clues to this accounting error is the use of the terms; “Net Energy Gain” and “Extra Energy” as used in the climate science community.
In the engineering community we use the prediction of “extra energy” as a RED FLAG to tell us our analysis is wrong. The climate science community declares this as a new physical “effect”, but they have yet to demonstrate the existence of this “effect”.
Engineers that routinely calculate “Net Energy Gains” either get fired or promoted into management.
Regarding why the Earth is at the average temperature it is, I have yet to hear any one explanation that makes total sense. But knowledge always expands and we will likely know why sometime. Although from a practical sense it seems to make very little difference.
But it most definitely is not the result of the GHE.
The “GHE” appears to cause some energy to travel through the system (bouncing as it where) between the gases and the surface all the while dissipating energy to Space via radiation. The end result is a slight delay to the energy as it travels from the Sun to the Earth through the Atmosphere to the Universe. Please note that a slight delay is not always caused by slowing the speed at which heat flows through the system. The insulation in your walls/ceiling (aka the “pink batts”) does in fact slow the flow of heat so that your heat source (furnace, boiler, etc.) has to “fill” your house with heat less frequently than it would in the absence of said insulation.
The “Greenhouse Effect” only causes the flow of heat through the system to be delayed because the energy (alternating between IR radiation and thermal energy) undergoes more passes through the system. More passes at the same speed causes a delay.
The “missing heat” is currently travelling as a spherical IR wavefront that is “X+d” light years away from the surface. In this equation X represents the elapsed time since the sunlight arrived (i.e. 100 years for sunlight from 1912) and d represents the slight delay from the GHE and likely averages about 5 milliseconds. “d” is actually a statistical distribution which will of course have a different specific value for each photon travelling through the system. Some will bounce many times and take longer to exit, while others may not bounce at all and exit directly to space. For reference, there are about 86 million milliseconds in each day. So, the argument that the GHE delays the flow of heat enough so that some is leftover at the end of each day and a higher equilibrium temperature results is specious.
Lest you think engineers are not qualified to calculate proper energy budgets you should consider the case of satellites orbiting the Earth. These technological marvels get all of their operating energy from the Sun. Yes, chemical energy (i.e. rocket fuel) gets them up there and some onboard chemical energy (i.e. fuel) is used to maneuver them into the correct orbit. But all of the energy to operate them day to day comes from the Sun and is converted by solar panels. Engineers take great pains to ensure there will always be enough energy onboard to ensure the proper operation of these expensive assets. As an engineer who has worked with these energy budgets I am respectfully pointing out that the climate science community has TOTALLY BOLLIXED their “Energy Budget” calculations. It starts with using the wrong units (i.e. mW/m^2 are units of POWER, not units of energy). And it all goes downhill from there.
Cheers, Kevin.
00
Excellent summation KevinK.
However now brace yourself for the howls of derision (from the skeptics no less) for daring to suggest this Enron-style accounting methodology for energy in any way contravenes the Laws of Thermodynamics.
For some on this site that is an even more extreme view than suggesting the perpetrators of this scam should be held legally accountable for their criminal actions.
00
KK: mW/m^2 are units of power/field intensity.
Only the mW represent power.
IMNSHO: The most egregious hijacking of scientific terminology in the religion of climatology is that of “forcing”. What is categorised as a “forcing” isn’t related to a force at all.
For my”take” on the Assault on Heartland, click here.
00
Bernd, mW/m^2 are power over a specified spatial area. They are not energy. And they say nothing/little about field intensity.
You are of course ocrrect, the term “forcing” is in fact a bad joke when performing a real energy budget.
Cheers, Kevin.
00
[…] Jo Nova Share this:PrintEmailMoreStumbleUponTwitterFacebookDiggRedditLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. This entry was posted in Climate Change, Media. Bookmark the permalink. ← Roger Pielke Jr.: New Peer-Reviewed Paper on Global Tropical Cyclone Landfalls […]
00
Whoops, a better expression of my thoughts would have been;
“So, one bundle of energy from the Sun simply warms the surface multiple sequential times, since these warming events are PRECEDED by equivalent cooling events and are separated by finite time delays YOU CANNOT ADD THEM TOGETHER and get a correct result.”
Instead of;
“So, one bundle of energy from the Sun simply warms the surface multiple sequential times, since these warming events are FOLLOWED by equivalent cooling events and are separated by finite time delays YOU CANNOT ADD THEM TOGETHER and get a correct result.”
Boy, those little word selections do in fact make a difference.
Cheers, Kevin.
00
Wow, you warmists have so little left that you think this is newsworthy?
How about we demand that ALL lobby groups disclose their sources of funds?
My choices to start:
Tides Foundation
Aspen Institute
The Occupy idiots
Or lets work this in reverse. Lets see all the things funded by:
George Soros
Fabians everywhere
China
OPEC
Oooh raah Warmist
00
Well if Heartland have there way it will be fraking business ANYWHERE!
Fracking became controversial in 2010 and 2011 because environmentalists, hoping to prevent the development of large reserves of oil and natural case in the Marcellus Shale Formation, invented charges that fracking poses environmental and safety risks. The liberal media has
uncritically reported these charges as though they were scientifically based, leading to pressure on national and state elected officials to ban or regulate the use of fracking. Heartland has been one of the most outspoken defenders of fracking in the U.S., using Environment & Climate News, its Web sites, and its PR and GR operations to comment repeated on the issue and reach large audiences. We have not, however, yet attempted to raise funds from businesses with a financial interest in fracking. In 2012 we intend to correct that oversight and
approach dozens of companies and trade associations that are actively seeking allies in this battle. The budget for this project consists almost entirely of current budgeted expenditures on research, PR, and GR. We are breaking out summaries of what we’ve already done on the topic and plan to do, to submit to potential donors. We hope to raise $100,000 for the topic in 2012, with half this amount coming from first-time and lapsed donors.
From the Fund Raising Policy Statement 2012.
(Ross continues to ignore the blog post and the factual evidence therein in his continual determination to run on stupidly irrational attacks against a tiny organization with an even tinier budget on Global Warming issues) CTS
00
So let me see if I’ve got this right…
1) HI supports fracking.
2. They are going to seek funding from businesses with a financial interest in fracking.
3. Somehow this money will then corrupt HI?
I’m not sure what your background is Ross, but clearly logical progressions didn’t play a large role.
00
That excerpt is patently sane and proper. If you think you’re quoting a “horrible example”, you’re deluded.
00
Jo,
This is fantastic exposure and a great fund raising opportunity for The Heartland Institute. Can you perhaps put up a link to where I and others can donate to The Heartland Institute?
I hope THIS takes advantage of this and proudly invites more donations, because they sorely need them. $20K a year is such a meagre reimbursement for a tireless critic of bad climate science like Prof. Bob Carter, that it is downright shameful.
(DONATE LINK) CTS
(Anyone is welcome to help JoNova with a donation) CTS
00
I buy the Melbourne Age newspaper only on Thursdays for its excellent radio and TV broadcasting guide, otherwise, I don’t really like Oz newspapers. Today, there was an article on the front page that I couldn’t avoid, by Ben Cubby (Who?) headlined:
Scientist accepts ‘cash for climate’
It carried no attributions, and I’ve not checked if it is plagiarized, but whatever, I intend to follow it to see if there will be any updates or corrections that ought follow.
OH, BLOW ME~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Strike me down with a feather:
I did a Google on the exact phrase: (“Scientist accepts ‘cash for climate”’) to find the Age website reference, and behold two surprises:
1) There are dozens of replications of that exact phrase around the web, so I guess someone has been copying something from somewhere, without accreditation, at least that is so in the case of the front page article in the AGE!
2) Ben Cubby updated his article a short while ago on the Age website in the light of information from Heartland etc. Shouldn’t these guys check with those involved in the allegations before publishing?
So, tomorrow I’ll buy the Age to see if it appears in print, but I betcha it won’t be on page 1 as in the original unauthenticated very sloppy report.
00
I found this comment by Steve McIntyre at Lucia’s, in his customary alert analyst style, to be rather intriguing:
Steve McIntyre (Comment #89815) February 15th, 4:31 pm
If you look at the Document Properties of the various Heartland documents, the Confidential Memo has a date of Feb 13, 2012 whereas the other documents date from January. In addition, the agenda source (for example) refers to a p: drive and an origin in a *.wpd document, while the Confidential Memo does not have these features.
00
I’m certain that a forensic analysis will confirm that one document to be a fake. I noted from the timezone information that the PDF may well have been produced on the West coast (of the USA or Canada), where Heartland has no office.
It is plausible to “fingerprint” a PDF of a scan to link it to a particular device. And to correlate it with PDFs of other scans previously (and subsequently) made and published with copies out of reach of the originator.
Aside:
Real anonymity is very, very expensive in the digital world; especially so with “rich” document formats.
00
[…] and now Ian Plimer has been appointed to a few boards, that are obviously cpmpanies, organisations with budgets which means they have dollars to spend on some carbon tax counterpropaganda, although of course it will also probably help to fuel the claims that skeptics are big investors, paid by, owned by, funded by Big Oil etc. That illusion is easily cast aside when one has a squiz at the numbers and notices the cavernous expanse between ‘funded by the Big Corporations ‘ and ‘funded by Big Government’ when it comes to funding either side, it is not even close. http://joannenova.com.au/2012/02/logic-gate-the-smog-blog-exposes-irrational-rage-innumeracy-and-hea… […]
00
[…] And here's Jo Nova, putting those shocking Heartland Institute funds for climate sceptics in their proper perspective…. […]
00
The TRUTH will prevail in the end and the global warming FRAUD is being seen for what it really is – pseudo science to tax us back to the Stone Age and destroy the fabric of our society.
00
[…] Jo Nova: The hypocrisy is flagrant. The Sierra Club listed a category for $1,000,000 donations by “anonymous donors” in their 2010 annual report. Strangely DeSmog didn’t froth with anticipation. Their Sierra Club annual report mentions “Matching Gifts”, and apparently supporters who matched gifts include the evil Exxon, not to mention GoldMan Sachs, Barclays, Google, Monsanto, Nestle, Yahoo, Bank of America, and many many more. But that’s alright then. […]
00
There are a number of things that will come out of this.
1. The consensus climate scientists and their cohorts cannot deal with numbers. Just as they have no sense of proportion with financial values, they likewise have no sense of proportion with sea level rise, temperature rise, or extreme weather events.
2. A better antonym of “sceptical” than “undoubting” or “believer” is “gullible”. Seems DeSmogBlog did not think to check out the authenticity of the damming 2012 strategy document. It fitted the narrative, so they published. Just as the alarmists let out whoops of joy for any bit of “scientific” evidence that supports their case, and doggedly defend it against criticism.
3. A number of people, like me, will visit Heartland.org for the first time. They will find they have 7 policy areas employing 20 people, of which “Environment & Energy” accounts for 3. They specialise in providing cogent summaries of these issues to policy-makers. Whatever you think of their political stance, they are hardly the secretive, rabid backwoodsmen right-wingers that the alarmists project.
4. This support for spreading information in a concise, intelligible form also comes out in the sceptic-funding “exposes”. There is one-off support for Antony Watts who
The, alleged, biggest recipient by far of monthly funding is Craig D Idso, who runs the co2science.org website. This provides summaries of climate science papers, collating their results to help give an overall picture of such as the medieval warm period, ocean acidification and the effect of CO2 on plant growth.
Overall the leak exposes why the little Heartland Institute is so evil and dangerous to many. They threaten the jobs and reputations of tens of thousands of climate scientists, “policy-makers”, regulators, and powerful business interests in the alternatives to reliable energy. On the other hand, they are on the side of those made hungry by fuel crops competing with food, and of future generations globally, who will be worse-off by growth-sapping mitigation policies.
00
The only thing that drives the alarmists is money. It reminds me of the Mafia only being government backed it makes it legal.
The lunatics who follow this garbage treat it like their favorite soap opera.
Sceptics, if you are not a sceptic then you are not a Scientist.
Take out the politics and huge government funding and some common sense may prevail.
00
The Truth about DeSmogBlog
http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/04/truth-about-desmogblog.html
00
[…] deal with numbers. Just as they have no sense of proportion with financial values (see Jo Nova on this), they likewise have no sense of proportion with sea level rise, temperature rise, or extreme […]
00
nice analysis http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/leaked-docs-from-heartland-institute-cause-a-stir-but-is-one-a-fake/253165/
00
[…] Here’s Jo Nova on the huge amounts of money the anti-science fanatics have vs the small funds we pro-science sceptics have. The believers of man-made-weather-disasters are wetting themselves with excitement. It painful to watch grown men drool. […]
00
Jo you are so fair in the space you give to people who live in the past and seem to still believe in the Polar caps melting,100ft sea rises,himalayan glaciers melting,the Barrier reef dying,Hurricanes,Earthquakes,Floods,Droughts,Bushfires all getting more severe.And Flannery,s warning that Melbourne,Sydney,Brisbane,Adelaide and Perth would be out of drinking water by now.This is all caused by CO2 being a pollutant and causing catastrophic heating.Who are you to Believe The Government Climate Scientist or the Data by Dr David Evans on your website 26 Jan 2012.The Skeptic,s Case leaves no doubt that the Climate models got it so wrong,and to follow the predictions would be criminal.Why not place this article as an advertisment in the News limited press in all capital cities of Australia so that 90% of the population can get the facts.To pay for the adds call on your readers to donate,I will start by pledging $1000.00 to the fund,it could help if Julia would make it Tax deductible
00
[…] Yes, says JoNova, let’s please look at who’s funding who in the climate zoo. […]
00
Poor Jo!
That clown Ross James was on my site Just Grounds)for months driving us all mad under the name “Ross Brisbane”.
He made one dump too many after I had had a few Rum and cokes and I see now where he has GOOONE!
[Rob, thank you for that bit of info. Yes we had “Ross Brisbane” here awhile back too. We will have to consider a new policy for “Ross”.] ED
[A Ross by any other name………..] sorry
00
Struth – your right Rob – Ross is back and he is still saying the same old “stuff”. Howdy do again Ross! Bring it on mate 🙂
00
Thats it, i want my share of the money too! How dare that Bob Carter get paid when i didnt, after all the work that the NRFA fella’s did, and what about all the people who drove their vehicles, and all the helicopters flying over head – heck Jo, didnt you get paid for doing the coverage of the Convoy too and focusing on No Carbon Tax…bugger me, we have all been ripped off! lol (of course all comment tic)
Scaper, you holding out on me old mate – where was my wedge of orange?! lol 🙂
I wonder if there is going to be a list released “moving forward” with the sms messages regarding the tent embassy debacle to – lets all throw it out there for total chaos and confusion saying we all did that and were paid to do it too?! lol
One word come to mind over all of this attack on Bob – his attackers are pathetic people…for people supposedly so “bright” i bet its not the only appendage that is actually quite small ! (read narrow minded! lol)
Oh, read someone attacking Ian Plimer too – what is wrong with you people? Bugger me – bit like “silly fillies” comments – sheesh – on the truck and to the “doggers” (pet food factory!) quick smart! lol
To quote Scaper – YAWN! 🙂
00
This is so so funny!
The argument goes like this “skeptic scientists only hold that view because they get paid”. i.e. they are corrupted by funding and tell lies to secure that funding.
Only problem is that the two examples, Bob Carter and Matthew Watt are on a standard wage.
Compare this to the money rolling into the IPCC hockey team which is orders of magnitude larger.
If money corrupts doesn’t LOTS more money corrupt a LOT MORE?
I just cannot wait to have this argument with some believers. Freaking idiots.
00
How can I donate to the Heartland Institute?
(Go to their website) CTS
00
[…] Joanne Nova, of JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax – Tackling tribal groupthink, seemed upbeat […]
00
[…] som lagts på att stötta klimatskeptiska konferenser, Anthony Watts temperaturprojekt etc. en spottstyver jämfört med pengaflödet till andra sidan. För det andra är det lite svårt att förstå […]
00
[…] Image is a slightly modified on from JoNova’s site: Fakegate: the smog blog exposes irrational rage, innumeracy, and heartland’s efficient success. […]
00
from AJ Strata…………..Interestingly, NASA and NOAA just launched a satellite that was commissioned to bolster Al Gore’s alarmist claims of runaway global heating. It is 6 years late in getting on 0rbit, ridiculously over budget and is still working through its commissioning phase so it can move into an operational state. Yet the NPP Soumi satellite has already captured some amazing data – and it completely destroys the IPCC’s basic models of energy balance.
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/18073
00
Why? Because ‘AJ Strata’ says it does? Hmmm…
00
Once upon a time, the “consensus” was that bloodletting was the best treatment for cancer.
It was probably a good 97% of all doctors, priests, & barbers who completely agreed.
00
[…] Nu onze waarde opponenten dit doen lukt het opeens wel. Prachtig! Bovenstaand plaatje komt van de site van Joanna Nova, die breed uitpakt over de affaire. Het verschil in geldstroom tussen beide lobby’s is […]
00
From the Reference Frame is this gem,
America’s 19 most charitable corporations
EXCERPT:
LINK
Think Progress think they are onto something with the list they created.I think you are stupid enough not to realize that they are smashing themselves in the process because they have no rational point to make.They fail to see how their following statement does not help their cause:
That was for the TWO YEAR time period!
Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
Do I need to go on about these hypocrites?
00
Miss Nova, is it true that you received money from the Heartland Institute for the Skeptic’s Handbook? If so, how much?
——
Mr/Master/Miss or Mrs Neven is it true you are an anonymous coward, looking for an ad hom smear? I wrote The Skeptics Handbook entirely unfunded as I have said many times before. So, since you think funding matters, you will become a skeptic now right? – Jo
00
Neven has not ‘ad hommed’ you,Jo…but you have done so to Neven. So you wrote it unfunded; did you get some funding for printing and distribution from Heartland,then?
00
Lol – nice try Warren…yawn 🙂
00
Cate..don’t know? Don’t care? Or just sleepy?
00
Reading comprehension probs Warren? Jo did NOT say Neven ad hommed her. She asked, and I quote…
Do you see the difference Warren?
p.s. to Jo. Neven is a Mr, better known as Arcticnev. He is an Ice alarmist who is $hitting himself because some ice melts every year as it has done for millenia.
He studies GISS temp trends in the Arctic even though GISS has no thermometres north of 80 lat. He posts pseudoscience such as melting ice in the Arctic causing freezing in Europe etc.
In other words, he has no interest in your funding or lack thereof other than to try cause some mischief. Put simply, Nev is an alarmist a$$hole.
How was that Nev old boy, did I get it about right?
00
So, an ad hom from you, and one from Jo. I see…Neven was asking for information, If Jo confirmed Heartland assistance,and passed that on,would that be an ad hominem smear, or factual reportage? Just asking,because comprehension is one of your strengths,apparently.
00
Ask all you like Warren. I didn’t come down in the last shower, apparently you did.
00
Here is part of your comment at 73.1 that I responded to..
You complain about ad homs, but hypocritically you demonstrate your intentions by focusing on whatever funding Jo may or may not have received for her handbook.
According to you then, if Jo was funded, that might invalidate the contents of the handbook?
Did you have any intentions of tackling Jo about THE CONTENTS OF THE HANDBOOK WARREN?
Will you link to any former comment(s) of yours that asks and or criticises funding received by UEA, CRU or any pro AGW published paper?
DO YOU COMPREHEND ALL THIS WARREN?
By focusing on what Jo may or may not have received to produce the arguments she does, rather than the arguments themselves, you and that moron Neven ARE engaging in ad homs and deserve every foot up the arse that I give you.
You ok with your comprehension now Warren?
00
Oh,you don’t know what ad hominem is,do you? And lord,you are aggressive. The funding of the book does not validate/invalidate its contents,but it is useful to know. I am very unlikely to trust material funded by interests that want to remain anonymous. Scientist acknowledge their funding sources per research project,so I don’t know where you think you are going there.
I don’t mind that the handbook is available. I am interested in transparency. Are you? Jo answered that she wrote it unfunded. I wondered whether the rest of the act of distributing it was similarly personally financed.
00
Come on Wozza, Get with the science, otherwise you’ll Neva be comfortable here,
Funny now that we have dissected the AGW “Science” every which way, and shown there
to be no science behind man made CO2 incineration, we now find the new approach:
FUNDING.
Of course, why didn’t we think of that first?
00
Lets sort this out once and for all Warren. Let us ASSUME between the two of us that Jo was sponsored by the Koch bros, Heartland, Big Oil, Big Coal and the Tea Party to produce the handbook.
NOW SHOW ME WHICH PARTS OF THE HANDBOOK ARE WRONG, WHICH PARTS ARE OBVIOUSLY AFFECTED BY TAINTED MONEY.
As soon as you’ve done that, I will show you the various parts of the IPCC AR4 that were tainted by BIG GREEN.
Do you accept the challenge? Put up or shut up Warren.
p.s. the fact that you think robust (love that word) is aggressive says more about your state of mind.
00
[…] Klimapolitik im Internet und den Medien ist. Unverändert bleibt auch die Einschätzung des eklatanten Ungleichgewichts zwischen den finanziellen Zuwendungen an die sogenannten “Klimaskeptiker” einerseits und […]
00
[…] this week have indeed shown how well-funded climate science and activism are in contrast to the paltry sums identified in support of skepticism. Does it not seem ironic […]
00
[…] and extreme green statements. Between them, Greenpeace and Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) spend nearly a billion a year. WWF spends $68 million a year on ‘public education’ alone. All of this is […]
00
[…] perhaps the silliest aspect of this failed publicity stunt, argues Australian blogger Jo Nova, is that it simply draws attention to the extraordinary success which underfunded climate realists […]
00
[…] Quelques chiffres (via Jo Nova): […]
00