I have not heard of the ‘Heartland Institute’ .
- Status
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Go back and look at all the citations against global warming that you use to support your view. You will find that most of them come from the Heartland Institute, or are hosted on their website.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
I have only ever suggested measures that would reduce GHGs while saving people money and not lowering their living standards…knowing how selfish and greedy people are. But apparently they are not even selfish and greedy, just profligate, bec no one takes me up on it.
I have absolutely no power to make people do anything, even my own relatives, who are not into mitigating AGW either. All I can do is suggest, and suggest, and suggest…like banging my head against a brick wall for 25 years.
I was actually going to give up and just concentrate on my own efforts a few years ago, and that very Sunday at Mass we had the OT reading about if you know a person is doing something wrong and you fail to tell him, that sin falls back on you.
So back it was to the endless futile head-banging against a brick wall until the day I die.
You have been lied to…by the well-oiled, well-funded AGW Skeptic Industrial Machine. They are dangerous, deceitful liars, who would take a grain of truth and turn it into a big fat lie.
Like that Steven Goddard (fake name) who used a much earlier graph (when they were using a much earlier base time for their zero point) to make a false claim that climate scientists had lowered the earlier figures in their decades later graph, which uses a different zero point based on more recent years. see here
It is a very sad shame they have such clout and influence.
Z
Zzyzx_Road
Guest
There are legitimate disputes as to the changes in hurricane and typhoon intensity over time, these can readily be googled for. In light of this, there is no settled science here. For instance, there is a dispute as to whether Indian Ocean readings prior to 1989 are reliable or not. Extrapolating this back just 100 years leads to some serious WAGs regarding hurricane, typhoon and cyclone size and strength around the world. Go back further in history and there are no reliable measurements anywhere. Hence it’s arrogant to believe that firm conclusions about storms can be drawn from less than 100 years of reliable data.
======================
Okay now let’s talk about lies and omissions: Why was Mann allowed to hide his data? Why should I have confidence in Mann’s conclusions if his data can’t be examined?
Before UVA said no to the FOIA request for Mann’s records, they said a complete yes to a largely similar FOIA request for Dr. Patrick Michael’s records. Both Mann and Michaels had similar tenured status on UVA’s faculty prior to Michaels’ retirement. What was the difference between the cases? Mann is an AGW’er while Michaels is a skeptic.
This isn’t the only occurrence of such a double standard. The University of Delaware said yes to a FOIA request for Dr David Legates’ records. The University not only said yes, they went further and forced Legates to produce all his records regardless of the activities they were associated with. However, when a similar FOIA request was made for the records of several faculty members who had contributed to the IPCC, the University told the requesters that the FOIA did not apply at all. To make a long story short, when Legates disputed the disparate treatment, he was eventually bullied out of his job despite the alleged assurance of academic freedom.
Don’t point me to the Heartland Institute: two wrongs do not make a right. Don’t point me elsewhere. Stay on this topic and defend Mann and U of Delaware.
======================
Okay now let’s talk about lies and omissions: Why was Mann allowed to hide his data? Why should I have confidence in Mann’s conclusions if his data can’t be examined?
Before UVA said no to the FOIA request for Mann’s records, they said a complete yes to a largely similar FOIA request for Dr. Patrick Michael’s records. Both Mann and Michaels had similar tenured status on UVA’s faculty prior to Michaels’ retirement. What was the difference between the cases? Mann is an AGW’er while Michaels is a skeptic.
This isn’t the only occurrence of such a double standard. The University of Delaware said yes to a FOIA request for Dr David Legates’ records. The University not only said yes, they went further and forced Legates to produce all his records regardless of the activities they were associated with. However, when a similar FOIA request was made for the records of several faculty members who had contributed to the IPCC, the University told the requesters that the FOIA did not apply at all. To make a long story short, when Legates disputed the disparate treatment, he was eventually bullied out of his job despite the alleged assurance of academic freedom.
Don’t point me to the Heartland Institute: two wrongs do not make a right. Don’t point me elsewhere. Stay on this topic and defend Mann and U of Delaware.
I have never made such a citation.
Either find the quote or offer up your apologies for the false accusations.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I didn’t mean that you had posted any citations, but you must be getting your anti-AGW information from somewhere, most likely citations from other people. Go back and look at those and see if most of the don’t ultimately come from the Heartland Institute.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
But we can’t omit talking about the Heartland Insitute since their people are the ones saying that Mann was hiding data and these other accusations of fraud. It is only right to look into the credibility of the accusers when considering the accusation.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
While it has been more difficult to establish more intense and frequent hurricanes from AGW, mainly because the dataset is more meager than temp datasets and there was a “statistical threat to validity.” However, it is fairly well settled now.
Again like establishing proof of AGW when they already knew thru laws of physics that it would be happening 100 years earlier (the GH effect has been established in science for over 100 years), they had good reason to expect AGW to increase hurricanes, since an important factor (a necessary, but not sufficient cause) is higher sea surface temps. Also more heat content in earth systems relates to higher probability of heat energy going into the kinetic energy of storms…
“Trick to hide the decline” is referring to a method of how to splice two datasets together, one for the tree ring proxy data (which was used before instrumental data) and the instrumental data.
The tree ring data pretty much jived with the instrumental data until the 1960s, when it started diverging downward, while the instrumental (more accurate) data from thermometers showed an increase in the warming.
Mann and others don’t know why that is, but I have some idea from my research and readings. With GW due to the increasing GH effect the night (minimum diurnal) temps are increasing faster than the day (maximum diurnal) temps. And this has a negative impact on plants (and people). They need the cooler night temps to recoup from the high day temps.
Welch, J., J. R. Vincent, M. Auffhammer, P. F. Moya, A. Dobermann, and D. Dawe. 2010. “Rice Yields in Tropical/Subtropical Asia Exhibit Large but Opposing Sensitivities to Minimum and Maximum Temperatures.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(33): 14562-14567.
And re people, they have analyzed that the high level of deaths from the heat in Europe in 2003 were due more to the high night-time temps not giving people a chance to recoup from the stress from the high day temps.
These are different datasets, and for Mann some aspects of it had to be purchased and there are proprietary rights involved. Everyone is free to buy the same data from the same sources Mann got his data…
I don’t know about the Legates case, but it could be the same thing. However, here is some info on Legates and his funding from the AGW Skeptic Industry: desmogblog.com/david-legates and exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=18
E
Erich
Guest
It seems to me that just as the personal sanctity of the priest does not affect the validity of a sacrament, so Mann’s credibility does not depend on the credibility (or perceived lack thereof) of the Heartland Institute.
Either Mann hid data or he didn’t. Either he “seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities” (the point of inquiry on which no definitive finding was made) or he didn’t. That said, there’s a legal distinction between being found “innocent” and being found “not guilty”
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
That is true. If evidence of this massive fraud perpetrated by Mann and other climate scientists were presented from original sources that did not depend on any questionable authority like the Heartland Institute, then we could ignore the credibility question of the Heartland Institute and similar organizations. But until such evidence is presented, AGW proponents are under no obligation to mount a defense against accusations from unnamed accusers.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Wasn’t keeping track. If the weatherman was talking about it coming from the north, rather than from the west, then that would indicate a neg arctic oscillation or rossby wave. It is these that are tied into AGW, and it has to do with less ice extent up in the arctic ocean.
If it was just your typical cold CO weather, with a basically west-to-east pattern, then it would not have been due to that.
Here is something that might help explain it: climate.gov/news-features/event-tracker/how-polar-vortex-related-arctic-oscillation
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Makes me want to look up the Heartland Institute.
But virtually all sides of any debate are accumulated in compendia by organizations or individuals with an interest in the subject matter. The mere fact, if true, that the Heartland Institute cites secondary sources that agree with its point of view does not somehow make them all “Heartland Institute sources”.
In the various MMGW threads we have seen countless examples of derivative information, primarily on the “pro” side of it. I would go so far as to say that’s all we have ever seen from any side of the issue or any of the sub-issues. All of this is, as I have said before, high school debate level. “My quote beats your quote” sort of thing. That’s not to put anyone down, or to say nobody should post anything, but nobody should claim that his sources are somehow definitive when they are actually secondary sources and appeals to authority based on conclusory statements.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Stretching it a bit here, Lynnvinc. They don’t say it’s caused by MMGW. They say nobody knows, but that some ideas are loss of arctic ice, decadal variability, etc.
Need to be careful about that. We’re all guilty of over-interpreting our source information at times.
E
estesbob
Guest
Weather events that bolster the theory of global warming are proof of Global Warming. Weather events that weaken the theory of global warming are just weather events.
T
theCrow
Guest
Bob, just curious but are you also a “Flat earther”, a “Birther” or a 9/11 “Truther”? Climate Change is real, and humans are a big cause of it.
You never said what you think about this:
climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
So in your opinion, are NASA and every one of those groups in this consensus wrong?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The usual solution to that conundrum is to find a set of primary data or derivative information or authority that both sides** do** agree on, and then argue conclusions from there. The problem with this MMGW debate is the every significant primary data set and authority is questioned by one side or the other, so the “common starting point” is very difficult to find. A few kitchen table physics demonstrations have been suggested (by both sides) to get around that problem, making untarnished primary data available to all with a kitchen table. The trouble is those demonstrations are very primitive and have limited applicability to the essential questions in MMGW. Their utility is to dismiss the most blatantly invalid arguments. But they are unable to dismiss the more nuanced arguments on either side. So until we find that common starting point from which to begin a real debate, I’m afraid we are stuck at the level of, as you say, “My quote beats your quote”.
Ok.
How about you find and post my “anti-agw” information?
I would be curious to see it.
Classic ad hominem.
E
estesbob
Guest
Yup. Followed by argumentum ad verecundiam
T
theCrow
Guest
Ad hominem attacks are only one of the fallacies poisoning the climate debate. Campaigners regularly use guilt by association, straw man arguments and appeals to emotion, motive and authority to divert the public from considering the scientific fact of humans affecting climate change. Oil and gas companies have their interests to protect but we have our grandchildren to protect and “denial” of the accumulated evidence for human-caused climate change is not smart. The politics of climate change is about what will be best for future generations and the “weight of evidence” suggests that burning fossils fuels at the current rate will cause our children problems. If we are concerned about the national debt, we should also be concerned about the dumping of megatons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. It is good to be alarmed about that because it is actually alarming. Fossil fuel funded propagandists are the ones claiming that climate scientists are part of a vast government conspiracy - that’s just silly. Lets agree to do whats best for the next generation. They are our children and our children’s children.
- Status