'Fear of science' at root of journalists' critique of think tank

Institutions can be bought, they live or die on government funding so it is only natural that the studies that come out pertain to what government is expecting.

 

Can you explain how 187 countries around the world ALL funded science with the expectation built into the funding that the scientists had to prove gclimate change was real

 

Sooooo rather than answer you have posted an Ad Hom?

 

The points you object to are well made and correct.

 

I don’t know of many at all who would suggest that humans have no impact on our environment. It’s the extent of that impact compared to other things natural, clyclical , and solar that are at issue here.

 

You may be right about that. BUT, why would people believe that?

Why would they accept the sciece of human impact but reject the science of natural cycles?

You seem to be identifying a variety of fallacious arguments here. And, I can accept that. But, its really troubling that people would pick and choose what science says in total and only accept the pieces that support their predominantly uneducated point of view. (Just assuming that only a fraction of the population has the education and experience to claim to be climatologists.)

 

What is really sick is the self anointed bigots who call themselves pro science consensus belittle all opposing viewpoints calling Heartland and others who dare to question them as purveyors of “pseudoscience” and falsely label such sites as so called “questionable”. There are sites on line that forbid the use of sites as sources that are labeled as pseudoscience or questionable due to their being so labeled over the global warming issue.

 

Did you actually read the article! !

Here let me quote some important parts for you!!!

"Any time that you present scientific evidence from all sides, that is how science is performed," he continued. "In this case, what is being disputed [isn't] whether the earth has been warming, because it has; [and] it's not that carbon dioxide is greenhouse gas, because we know it is.

"But the dispute between alarmists and skeptics is how much warming can we expect and what will be the impacts."

 

Heartland is wel known for promoting pretty much anybody willing to oppose the world wide consensus of climatologists on climate change.

At present, they don't even PRETEND to argue the science. Months ago they stated they were making a strategic change - moving away from discussing science toward purely political objectives. So, they spend their time and resources attacking any action taken to mitigate climate change.

So, yes. Heartland has NO claim to scientific honesty and absolutely warrants labels a least as strong as "pseudoscience" and "questionable".

 

I will repeat my challenge

Show me a research paper, by preference peer reviewed and a systematic review from Heartland that meets the same academic standards as say, the IPCC

 

Have you actually read the IPCC reports? The summaries even? Or are you basing this opinion on what some neckbeard on the internet has written?

 

Well that had nothing to do with what I was talking about but if you insist on dangling the carrot, and in such a trollish manner, how could I resist!!!

About IPCC copied from their website.

"The IPCC provides regular assessments of the scientific basis of climate change, its impacts and future risks, and options for adaptation and mitigation."

"the objective of the IPCC is to provide governments at all levels with scientific information that they can use to develop climate policies."

As stated they mainly concerned with the negative aspects of climate change, they are not interested in a holistic view of climate change. A holistic view would require looking at both the negative and positive aspects.

 

Interesting that you quotes do not support the claim you are making about negative impacts. Admittedly scientists do tend to the gloomy side naturally but if there is evidence there of “alarmism”? Is there evidence that the science has been misrepresented in any way?

 

You are missing the boat. When Leftists finance an organization, you have no problem with the cooperative effort. But when it's NOT someone on your side of the political aisle, you ridicule them and dismiss everything they have to say.
Facts are facts and common sense analysis should be accepted irrespective of the source. Yours is the Fallacy of the Ad Hominem. Don't attack the source, discuss the errors in the message, if indeed there are any. Personally, I find nothing BUT errors in Left Wing Bitterness and Fearmongering. That's just how they roll. Divisiveness.

 

I'm not particularly left wing.
Whenever someone gives me advice, I ask 3 questions:
Do they know what they're talking about?
Who's paying them? (ie, are they biased?)
Do they have my best interests at heart?
If, as you say, you accept anything someone says without asking those questions then you may get bad advice.
I tell you, be careful if you buy a used car......

 

Following the money trail is an important step in understanding what is behind political positions.

It's why we see large numbers of small political contributions as more important than the firehose of corporate dollars.

It's why corporations and the wealthy work so hard to keep their donations a secret.

 

I thought you knew that there are limits on all donations made to the party and candidates?

https://www.insidepoliticallaw.com/2019/02/07/fec-increases-contribution-limits-2019-2020/


An individual may contribute to …
Federal Candidates $2,800 per election
National party committees — main account $35,500 per year
National party committees — convention account (RNC and DNC only) $106,500 per year
National party committees — party building account $106,500 per year
National party committees — legal fund account $106,500 per year
State or local party committees’ federal accounts $10,000 per year
Federal PACs $5,000 per year

 

That's only a fraction of the story.

SuperPACs may solicit and spend unlimited sums of money on campaigns. UNlimited.

The law says that they can't be directly part of a particular candidate, however folks like Mitt Romney have talked about "my Superpac". There is nothing in place to prevent associations between Superpacs and individual candidates that are kept unofficial - such as Mitt Romney does. And, it's insane to think that SuperPACs wouldn't at the very least watch and support political decisions that THEIR candidate makes. Plus, campaigns absolutely DO inform supporters of their strategy, logic, and how they can help.

There are reporting laws, but major operations occur such that reporting isn't necessary until after the election. Obviously, at that point the understanding of who is driving what issues and candidates is moot.

Also, if you add the above you will find that I can donate to my major party candidate and his/her party at a rate in excess of 1/4 million/year in addition to what I contribute to SuperPACs, and there are multiple SuperPACs, so I can divide my huge donations between multiple SuperPACs that work toward my candidate.


The vast percent of America can not afford to do ANY of that - it IS an outlet for corporations (which aren't even human entities) and the elite to have monumental influence compared to the population of human citizens as a whole.

 

I gave to the forum documentation.

You did not do that.

 

We have stated over and over and let me hope this ends that discussion.

Climate changes. It has to be real since we have more than sufficient information to prove it changes.

For instance. At the north pole, it once was very tropical and warm. it was humid. It had giant insects. Core samples proved this to me and those others who studied this.

We have the magnificent Great Lakes that are both here in the USA and also in Canada to our north. The lakes are the definite result of climate changing. It once was so cold in that area it was really all about glaciers. We had a major ice bridge collapse into the USA at one point that moved a lot of soil and rocks in some of our states. Seeing those particular rocks is why science started looking at why they were there and not further north. A major lake was allowed to release into the USA and had civilization been there, a lot of lives could have been lost .

How can the IPCC be formed in the first place unless it had arrived at a conclusion in the first place? I believed all along the gist was man manages global climate and we must manage it right now or the roof caves in.

 

A wave of my hand to ChemEngineer whose remarks I always have valued. Welcome back and stay explaining science here please.

 

The basic rules of SuperPACs are pretty well known.

The rest of my post was just a description of how those rules may be used. And, I would think that those on this forum understand that, as it's been a serious issue since SuperPACs were created as well as the contentions of cheating on those rules have come about during every election since.

 

No, that's not what happened.

First, let's remember that every climate scientist who has every existed knows that climate does change. So, let' give up on presenting that as if it is an enlightenment - it absolutely is NOT. In fact, it is those very scientists who let us know when and by how much climate HAS changed.

Next, the IPCC came together after the majority of scientists from around the world began reporting results in a specific direction. (Insert your claims of global conspiacy here, as that had to come BEFORE the IPCC.)

Governments and other organizations needed a source of climate information that didnt require each organization to study all the published sciece that existed for each decision they needed to make. So, the IPCC was formed in order to do the integrration of tested, peer reviewed and published science. (The IPCC doesn't do science of its own.)

 

Clearly if you have to keep asking you don't understand how search engines work. How is there legitimacy if an organization, like the most of the global warming hoaxers, get their money from purely politically biased sources like the government? How is that somehow better?

 

Let's start with the PAC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee

As long as it takes money to campaign, you will find supporters putting their funds there to elect or promote who they want promoted.

We do not have a system allowing for a free campaign.

Super Pacs came into being after the court decision called Citizens United. It was never a creation of the congress. But is Citizens United a good decision or a lousy one.

I believe it is the only correct decision.

I see it kind of this way.

Party A promises things. Party A explains as a member of a legislative body, said party will work to enact a particular legislation agenda. So if you favor that agenda, you want to spend cash to assist party A win.

Naturally opponents will raise the roof and protest it is wrong to support Party A. But that is how it works.