Heartland is, as you said, a sorry mouthpiece for the Koch's and all of the other sorry right wing conspiratists in the US. Anything bad that can come their way is well-deserved, though not as much so as to ALEC...the worst of the worst of all of these organizations!

report 6 likes, 5 dislikes   like  dislike

Please tell me 'anonymous' struck another one for the people.

report 4 likes, 2 dislikes   like  dislike

Manufactroversy is the term for Heartland's tactics.
Manufactroversy (măn’yə-făk’-trə-vûr’sē)
N., pl. -sies.
1. A manufactured controversy that is motivated by profit or extreme ideology to intentionally create public confusion about an issue that is not in dispute.
2. Effort is often accompanied by imagined conspiracy theory and major marketing dollars involving fraud, deception and polemic rhetoric.
http://scienceprogress.org/2008/04/manufac…

The article describes how manufactroversy has been used to derail efforts to deal with the intelligent design scam, global warming, and AIDS.

Heartland is one of ALEC's tools. HL provides "expert" testimony for or against bills and regulations in legislatures around the country. Since legislators are typically not experts in any field, HL's travelling lobbyists are able to befuddle them.

report 9 likes, 6 dislikes   like  dislike

That's a horrible article. As much as Otto and others hysterically express their ruling that man-made global warming is proven beyond all doubt, there is still a significant amount of skepticism within the scientific community about this. While I'm convinced that climate change is real, as evidenced by the analysis of polar ice core samples, that man is actually causing it is only a hypothesis. Normally, skepticism in science is welcomed. The more skepticism a scientific theory can withstand, the stronger it becomes. Yet, isn't it amazing how this is one area of science where skeptics are vilified, and the most apoplectic of environmentalists even want the skeptics locked away if that is what it takes to silence them. Oh I know, these skeptics are keeping us from fixing global warming. What arrogance to believe, with everything our Earth has endured long before man discovered fire, that man has the power to change climate patterns. I had never heard of the Heartland Institute, but I didn't get the sense that they are hiding their efforts to give voice to those who see evidence that man-made global warming is a manufactured crisis by the bloated AlGore and others who have staked their careers and reputations on it being true. What they want to accomplish is right there on their website for all to see.

report 8 likes, 17 dislikes   like  dislike

@Drackman - here's the rub that NO ONE seems to get:

IF we "over-react" AND skeptics/deniers are right, a bunch of time and money could be wasted, although much learning will accrue, and EVERY scientific group will have major egg on it's face.
Yawn...

IF it is real and caused by "man," and we do nothing (which is what is happening - or not happening...) we're SCREWED. OUCH!!!

The micro view of this: skeptics vs deniers vs IT'S A HOAXers - the latter get all the applause at 'bagger/ReTHUGlican "events." The fact remains that 90% of the "denier" funding comes from Koch's, et al. Tell me again about their "commitment to the betterment of huManKind."

report 7 likes, 4 dislikes   like  dislike

Remember when the rant was that global warming was just a hoax, that no worming was occuring?

Then slowly the rant transitioned to the fact warming is occuring but now there is no PROOF humans are A cause. (note I used A instead of The)

I predict that the deniers will further transition to "A" cause and fight over to what degree humans are to blame.

It is the same path the tobacco pushers took until it turned into undeniable and resulted in Billions of bucks in payouts. Not because tobacco causes cancer but because the lying about it for decades.

report 5 likes, 4 dislikes   like  dislike

>>that man-made global warming is proven beyond all doubt, there is still a significant amount of skepticism within the scientific community about this.<

Are you shitting me! Of course there is skepticism. Have you seen the prices paid for that skepticism?

report 8 likes, 4 dislikes   like  dislike

...and of course I meant "NO ONE" in the skeptic/denier/HOAX camp... "We scientists" get it!

report 1 like, 3 dislikes   like  dislike

Drack

You commit a common denier tactic.
Step 1) Grossly overstate a claim
Step 2) Attack your own overstatement

"Ruling that man-made global warming is proven beyond all doubt" (to quote Drackman 3:33)

That is not a conscientious scientist's response. A scientist (as opposed to a paid hack for either argument) rarely speaks in terms of "proven beyond all doubt". Researchers and scientists I have come into contact both casually and professionally state phrases such as:

Preponderance of evidence suggests
majority of research concludes
verifiable observation supports
reviewed studies indicate
or
multiple studies have refuted


Also of note is that is a lack of commenting on realms not personally learned nor expert in.

Talk to a geologist about carbon sequestering in limestone, dolostone and chalks as "proof" of past atmospheres and they get deep, specific and emphatic but talk sunspots and they are no more informed than any man on the street.

When listening to arguments I often note if a person professes too much indept knowledge on too many unrelated topics. I have found that the strongest indicator of sincerity is the admission of not being fully informed on some aspects.

An example is a 9-11 conspiracy proponent that argues claiming even mastery of varied disciplines as

steel I-beam construction combustion under load failure rates
jews failed to show forwork in mass that day
explosive demolition variables
video altering techniques and mass hysteria phenomina

Drackman

Your own mention of ice cores are great indicators that flora and fauna have altered the atmosphere and climate in the short term (300,000 years)

Fossil evidence of a vastly different past atmosphere indicates that algae altered the atmosphere which enabled land plant life which altered the atmosphere which enable land animal life.

Please be aware that I am not a geologist nor ancient or recent climatologist. So I have touched on multiple disciplines.

If you wish I can point you to sources on these aspects that I have found significant.

report 9 likes, 2 dislikes   like  dislike

Re global climate change- it doesn't matter what the cause is. If global climate change is taking place (an overwhelming majority of unbiased climatologists say it is) and is a threat to human survival or our cushy American lifestyle as we know it today, then the only sane course of action is to do whatever we as humans can to reduce global climate change and mitigate its damage. Even for strictly selfish reasons (think November, SNotSherlockHolmes, conservative, baker, Viper, and that ilk) unrelated to any global humanitarian concerns, we should be doing everything possible to reduce CO2 and methane emissions.

Where are those cost/benefit analysis spouting Rethuglicons when we really need them?

report 6 likes, 2 dislikes   like  dislike

Drackman's been taken in by the Heartland Institute's misinformation program. There are no serious climate scientists who aren't in the back pocket of the oil comapanies and the Kochs who think that climate change isn't man-made.

I suggest you read "Merchants of Doubt" by Naomi Oreskes. It documents how the climate change deniers are the same group of hacks, ad-men, and right-wing idealogues who brought us SDI, "tobacco hasn't been proven to cause cancer," "teach the controversy" of evolution science, and "nuclear war is winnable." In other words, crooks and liars.

report 7 likes, 3 dislikes   like  dislike

I would say that the 99% of climate scientists who believe global warming is a fact and we're the cause are correct, and that the 1% who say otherwise are simply out to increase corporate earnings and to hell with the planet we're leaving our children. As usual.

There's not a lot of ethical difference between the 1% extracting all the wealth from the people and the 1% destroying for profit the planet on which the people live.

report 8 likes, 4 dislikes   like  dislike

Key here is "man-made climate change.

report 4 likes, 1 dislike   like  dislike

Drackman's post reminds me of an old joke (slightly amended here):

Question: How do you keep a Rethuglicon Tea Pot Head uninformed?
Answer: Hide his TV remote so he can't watch Faux Propaganda.

Question- How do you keep a Rethuglicon Tea Pot Head misinformed?
Answer: Let him have his TV remote.

report 2 likes, 2 dislikes   like  dislike

The debate in the scientific community is not if anthropomorphic climate change is real, the debate is how we are going to survive.

report 4 likes, 1 dislike   like  dislike

So the document this article is based on is fake, but the information in the document is true. That is some great investigative journalism.

To date, no scientist has proven that there is anthropogenic global warming.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike