Global warming dials up our risks, UN report says

[Flying Crane]

A quick look at the polar bear populations...

http://www.polarbearsinternational....ntists-say/are-polar-bear-populations-booming



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tic-Polar-bears-defy-concerns-extinction.html



See, it is important to use polar bears because people like them...so scare people about their plight and they won't question global warming...



Here are the ten reasons...

http://polarbearscience.com/2013/02/26/ten-good-reasons-not-to-worry-about-polar-bears/

take a look at some real science. from the 2014 report Intergovernmental Panel Report on Climate Change, http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/report/final-drafts/
From Chapter 28, Polar Regions:

The primary concern for polar bears over the foreseeable future is the recent and projected loss of annual ice over continental shelves, decreased ice duration, and decreased ice thickness (high confidence). Of the two subpopulations where data are adequate for assessing abundance effects, it is very likely that the recorded population declines are caused by reductions in sea ice extent. [28.2.2.1.2; 28.3.2.2.2]

and more:

Empirical studies provide direct insight into the mechanisms of climate change impact on polar bears (Ursus maritimus) but modelling allows predictive capacity (Hunter et al., 2010; Amstrup et al., 2010; Durner et al., 2011; Castro de la Guardia et al., 2013).
Polar bears are highly specialized and use annual ice over the continental shelves as their preferred habitat (Durner et al., 2009; Miller et al., 2012). The recent and projected loss of annual ice over continental shelves, decreased ice duration, decreased ice thickness, and habitat fragmentation is causing reduced food intake, increased energy expenditure, and increased fasting in polar bears (high confidence) (Stirling and Parkinson, 2006; Regehr et al., 2007; Durner et al., 2009; Amstrup et al., 2010; Hunter et al., 2010; Derocher et al., 2011; Rode et al., 2012; Sahanatien and Derocher, 2012; Castro de la Guardia et al., 2013).
Subpopulation response varies geographically. Only 2 of the 19 subpopulations, Western Hudson Bay (Regehr et al., 2007) and the Southern Beaufort Sea (Regehr et al., 2010; Rode et al., 2010a) have data series adequate for clear identification of abundance effects related to climate change. Many other subpopulations show characteristics associated with decline but some remain stable. Declining ice is causing lower body condition, reduced individual growth rates, lower fasting endurance, lower reproductive rates, and lower survival (high confidence) (Regehr et al., 2007; Regehr et al., 2010; Rode et al., 2010a; Molnar et al., 2011; Rode et al., 2012). Condition is a precursor to demographic change (very high confidence) (Regehr et al., 2010; Hunter et al., 2010; Rode et al., 2010a; Robinson et al., 2011). The decline in the subpopulation in Western Hudson Bay by 21% between 1987 and 2004 was related to climate change (medium confidence) (Regehr et al., 2007).
Replacement of multiyear ice by annual ice could increase polar bear habitat (low confidence) (Derocher et al., 2004). Increasing the distance to multiyear ice and terrestrial refugia at maximal melt may result in drowning, cub mortality, and increased energetic costs (Monnett and Gleason, 2006; Durner et al., 2011; Pagano et al., 2012).
There is robust evidence of changes in sea ice conditions changing polar bear distribution including den areas (high confidence) (Fischbach et al., 2007; Schliebe et al., 2008; Gleason and Rode, 2009; Towns et al., 2010; Derocher et al., 2011). The number of human-bear interactions are projected to increase with warming (high confidence) (Stirling and Parkinson, 2006; Towns et al., 2009).
Use of terrestrial resources by polar bears was suggested as adaptive (Dyck et al., 2007; Dyck and Romberg, 2007; Armstrong et al., 2008; Dyck et al., 2008; Dyck and Kebreab, 2009; Rockwell and Gormezano, 2009; Smith et al., 2010). Polar bears cannot adapt to terrestrial foods (Stirling et al., 2008b; Amstrup et al., 2009; Slater et al., 2010; Rode et al., 2010b), and will most likely not be able to adapt to climate change and reduced sea ice extent (very high confidence). Changing ice conditions are linked to cannibalism (Amstrup et al., 2006), altered feeding (Cherry et al., 2009), unusual hunting behaviour (Stirling et al., 2008a), and diet change (Iverson et al., 2006; Thiemann et al., 2008) (medium confidence).




Theres more, it's a big report, but this is real science. Something you might want to acquaint yourself with.

 

[Flying Crane]

And a different take on the IPCC report...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspi...-and-misrepresents-important-climate-science/

[/SIZE]

Singer, eh? from Wikepedia...

According to David Biello and John Pavlus in Scientific American, Singer is best known for his denial of the health risks of passive smoking.[SUP][51][/SUP] He was involved in 1994 as writer and reviewer of a report on the issue by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, where he was a senior fellow.[SUP][52][/SUP] The report criticized the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for their 1993 study about the cancer risks of passive smoking, calling it "junk science".

and...

SEPP and funding[edit]

In 1990 Singer set up the Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) to argue against preventive measures against global warming. After the 1991 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, the Earth Summit, Singer started writing and speaking out to cast doubt on the science. He predicted disastrous economic damage from any restrictions on fossil fuel use, and argued that the natural world and its weather patterns are complex and ill-understood, and that little is known about the dynamics of heat exchange from the oceans to the atmosphere, or the role of clouds. As the scientific consensus grew, he continued to argue from a skeptical position.[SUP][3][/SUP] He has repeatedly criticized the climate models that predict global warming. In 1994 he compared model results to observed temperatures and found that the predicted temperatures for 1950–1980 deviated from the temperatures that had actually occurred, from which he concluded in his regular column in The Washington Times—with the headline that day "Climate Claims Wither under the Luminous Lights of Science"—that climate models are faulty. In 2007 he collaborated on a study that found tropospheric temperature trends of "Climate of the 20th Century" models differed from satellite observations by twice the model mean uncertainty.[SUP][57][/SUP]
Rachel White Scheuering writes that, when SEPP began, it was affiliated with the Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy, a think tank founded by Unification Church leader Sun Myung Moon.[SUP][3][/SUP] A 1990 article for the Cato Institute identifies Singer as the director of the science and environmental policy project at the Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy, on leave from the University of Virginia.[SUP][58][/SUP] Scheuering writes that Singer had cut ties with the institute, and is funded by foundations and oil companies.[SUP][3][/SUP] She writes that he has been a paid consultant for many years for ARCO, ExxonMobil, Shell, Sun Oil Company, and Unocal, and that SEPP has received grants from ExxonMobil. Singer has said his financial relationships do not influence his research. Scheuering argues that his conclusions concur with the economic interests of the companies that pay him, in that the companies want to see a reduction in environmental regulation.[SUP][3][/SUP]
In August 2007 Newsweek reported that in April 1998 a dozen people from what it called "the denial machine" met at the American Petroleum Institute's Washington headquarters. The meeting included Singer's group, the George C. Marshall Institute, and ExxonMobil. Newsweek said that, according to an eight-page memo that was leaked, the meeting proposed a $5-million campaign to convince the public that the science of global warming was controversial and uncertain. The plan was leaked to the press and never implemented.[SUP][59][/SUP] The week after the story,Newsweek published a contrary view from Robert Samuelson, one of its columnists, who said the story of an industry-funded denial machine was contrived and fundamentally misleading.[SUP][60][/SUP]ABC News reported in March 2008 that Singer said he is not on the payroll of the energy industry, but he acknowledged that SEPP had received one unsolicited charitable donation of $10,000 from ExxonMobil, and that it was one percent of all donations received. Singer said that his connection to Exxon was more like being on their mailing list than holding a paid position.[SUP][61][/SUP] The relationships have discredited Singer's research among members of the scientific community, according to Scheuering. Congresswoman Lynn Rivers questioned Singer's credibility during a congressional hearing in 1995, saying he had not been able to publish anything in a peer-reviewed scientific journal for the previous 15 years, except for one technical comment.[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][62]

wow, this is just rich. The guy is a Moonie, and gets funding from Big Oil. Imagine that.[/SUP]

 

[Steve]

http://mynorthwest.com/813/2485630/Prepare-for-gloom-followed-immediately-by-doom

The link above was to local commentary on the subject by Dave Ross, a long time radio news guy here in Seattle. The gist of it is that this is an example of what we all know to be true. People decide what they want to believe, look for evidence that supports their unsubstantiated opinion, and actively ignore any evidence to the contrary.

Whether or not climate change is real, man made or ultimately leading to demise, people will choose to believe what they want to believe. We see it all the time in threads like this. To paraphrase Dave Ross from this morning's broadcast, humans are risk takers, and will tend not to believe that something is risky until the worst has occurred. We continue to live on beaches, mud flats and flood planes, buying houses that we believe will never be destroyed... until they are.

The tragic mud slide that occurred recently in Oso, WA is a perfect example. And it will happen again probably in the same area. Knowing the risk, people will continue to believe what they want to believe, and actively seek out evidence to support their position while actively ignoring evidence contrary to their position.

 

[Flying Crane]

http://mynorthwest.com/813/2485630/Prepare-for-gloom-followed-immediately-by-doom

The link above was to local commentary on the subject by Dave Ross, a long time radio news guy here in Seattle. The gist of it is that this is an example of what we all know to be true. People decide what they want to believe, look for evidence that supports their unsubstantiated opinion, and actively ignore any evidence to the contrary.

yup, it's called "Cherry Picking" and some people here do it a whole lot.

 

[pgsmith]

The problem is that too many political pundits who are scientifically ignorant, have no idea what they are talking about. The large debate is not over whether or not global warming or climate change is happening, it is over why it is happening. Most scientists agree that 1) the average global temperature is rising, 2) carbon dioxide and methane can trap heat and cause warming, and 3) our industrial society is pumping large amounts of these gasses into the atmosphere every day. All of the debate comes into being from the fact that it is virtually impossible to say that the global temperature would not be rising if we weren't contributing our CO2 and methane into the mix. There are a great many factors involved in our climate, and no way of saying conclusively exactly what is happening or why due to this complexity. Therefore, a great many people that want less government regulation of industry toss their opinions around and make statements like "there's no proof of global warming", when in actual fact global warming is pretty easy to prove, there's just no definitive proof of the cause of global warming.

However, it is very difficult to get political extremists to think for themselves, just like any other sort of extremist. Therefore, they tend to let others think for them, without making the effort to determine if those thoughts are correct or not.

 

[Steve]

Here's the real issue, IMO. The topic is far too complicated for a lay person to really understand it. At some point, we are all picking sources we believe to be credible and taking their word for it.

This is how political pundits work. It's not that they have no idea what they're talking about, pgsmith. It's that they (none of them) really give a damn. There is a political agenda at play on all sides of this issue, just as there is with every other issue, and facts don't matter. The issue is complex enough that a case can be made sufficient for someone to hold up as "proof" that whatever they WANT to believe is the "truth."

This is, unfortunately, true for people who are not extremists, as well. You are either apathetic to the situation, knowing that you can't possibly understand it fully, or you make choices about who is credible. The best a lay person can hope for is to gather information from sources whom we believe are credible.

 

[elder999]

And since they can't accurately predict "weather" 72 hours out, it is a little weird that they try to tell us they can predict "climate" 10-20-100 years out...

First off, depending upon where you are, weather forecasting out to three days can be fairly accurate and useful-it's also improved a great deal over the last 20 years or so. This is less due to increases in understanding of weather patterns and the forces that affect it, which actually have been pretty substantial, than it is an increase in computer capacity and improved mathematical modeling.....still, the weather is, even where it generally follows the most stable of patterns, subject to chaos and unpredictability that are difficult to mathematically model much beyond three days: we've gotten better at predicting severe weather and changes within those three days, but even those have potential to change dramatically within that time frame.

And, yes, global warming actually can mean more severe winter weather in some places for a time-just as so much of the country saw this year, or it could have just been the weather, and just as global warming likely isn't entirely anthropogenic, it may have just been the "weather." If you don't understand that, well, it's no different than your not understanding how a particle can be in two places at the same time if you're not a physicist:

Science is "weird," unless you're a scientist in the field.....as for the predictions, they're based on models, all of which have one inherent flaw or another at the least, and unknown factors at most.

 

[elder999]

Not that I claim to have a lot of knowledge on the topic either but I think it is to do with the reduction in the polar icecap meaning less heat is reflected back into space. As a result the polar vortex weakens and cannot keep the cold air mass together. As a result a cold air mass breaks away and heads south over North America producing the freezing conditions you have been experiencing. I fear that in the foreseeable future it is likely to be a regular occurrence.
:asian:

And there's a pretty fair explanation of just one way that "clobal climate change" can lead to more severe winters...at first.

As for the original article, political unrest, war and disease all have come from lack of resources and changes in the environment in the past-it's completely reasonable to see that there might just be wars over water, even without global warming-it's a limited resource, and more precious than oil, when you get down to it.

 

[aedrasteia]

Knowing the risk, people will continue to believe what they want to believe, and actively seek out evidence to support their position while actively ignoring evidence contrary to their position.

AKA: Magical thinking.
Rampant in adolescents, persistent in some adults (as counted by number of years).

Function? Resolution of extreme emotional dis-comfort caused by cognitive dissonance.

 

[ballen0351]

Or has the other side been played by the scientists? What then do they really have to gain?

The gain $$$$. If I set out as a scientist to solve a "problem" only to discover its not solvable I've worked my self out of a job. However when I create a catastrophe that will kill us all. Now I can pretty much print money hand over fist.

 

[ballen0351]

Not to mention the billions made on "green" power. They have a vested interest in global warming as well.

 

[Flying Crane]

The gain $$$$. If I set out as a scientist to solve a "problem" only to discover its not solvable I've worked my self out of a job. However when I create a catastrophe that will kill us all. Now I can pretty much print money hand over fist.

as compared to the huge money to be gained by the fossil fuels industry because there is still oil and coal to be gotten and profited from. They have a huge financial interest in convincing everyone that there's nothing to worry about, so they can continue to profit thru pollution. yeah, it's energy and we do need energy, but it is disastrously pollutive. Their financial interest is vastly the larger.

 

[Flying Crane]

The problem is that too many political pundits who are scientifically ignorant, have no idea what they are talking about. The large debate is not over whether or not global warming or climate change is happening, it is over why it is happening. Most scientists agree that 1) the average global temperature is rising, 2) carbon dioxide and methane can trap heat and cause warming, and 3) our industrial society is pumping large amounts of these gasses into the atmosphere every day. All of the debate comes into being from the fact that it is virtually impossible to say that the global temperature would not be rising if we weren't contributing our CO2 and methane into the mix. There are a great many factors involved in our climate, and no way of saying conclusively exactly what is happening or why due to this complexity. Therefore, a great many people that want less government regulation of industry toss their opinions around and make statements like "there's no proof of global warming", when in actual fact global warming is pretty easy to prove, there's just no definitive proof of the cause of global warming.

However, it is very difficult to get political extremists to think for themselves, just like any other sort of extremist. Therefore, they tend to let others think for them, without making the effort to determine if those thoughts are correct or not.

there is truth in what you say, but there is very clear evidence linking significant acceleration of the climate changes, starting at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution when pollution increased on a large scale. People who wish to cast doubt on humanity's very significant contribution to the problem do so by ignoring the evidence and instead focusing on the complexities of climate and weather. it's a half-truth, designed to mislead and send a message that is the opposite of the truth.

 

[billc]

And then there is "Climategate"...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/



Image via Wikipedia

A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.


Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,”writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.


“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

The original Climategate emails contained similar evidence of destroying information and data that the public would naturally assume would be available according to freedom of information principles. “Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment]?” Jones wrote to Penn State University scientist Michael Mann in an email released in Climategate 1.0. “Keith will do likewise. … We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise. I see that CA [the Climate Audit Web site] claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!”

These new emails add weight to Climategate 1.0 emails revealing efforts to politicize the scientific debate. For example, Tom Wigley, a scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, authored a Climategate 1.0 email asserting that his fellow Climategate scientists “must get rid of” the editor for a peer-reviewed science journal because he published some papers contradicting assertions of a global warming crisis.

 

[Tgace]

Well...if the UN says so......

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2

 

[billc]

I also like this bit of "science"...

More than revealing misconduct and improper motives, the newly released emails additionally reveal frank admissions of the scientific shortcomings of global warming assertions.


“Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary,” writes Peter Thorne of the UK Met Office.


“I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run,” Thorne adds.


“Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive … there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC,” Wigley acknowledges.

 

[Flying Crane]

there is truth in what you say, but there is very clear evidence linking significant acceleration of the climate changes, starting at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution when pollution increased on a large scale. People who wish to cast doubt on humanity's very significant contribution to the problem do so by ignoring the evidence and instead focusing on the complexities of climate and weather. it's a half-truth, designed to mislead and send a message that is the opposite of the truth.

from EPA website, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html

Earth’s temperature depends on the balance between energy entering and leavingthe planet’s system . When incoming energy from the sun is absorbed by the Earth system, Earth warms. When the sun’s energy is reflected back into space, Earth avoids warming. When energy is released back into space, Earth cools. Many factors, both natural and human, can cause changes in Earth’s energy balance, including:

View enlarged imageModels that account only for the effects of natural processes are not able to explain the warming over the past century. Models that also account for the greenhouse gases emitted by humans are able to explain this warming.
Source: USGRCP (2009)

• Changes in the greenhouse effect, which affects the amount of heat retained by Earth’s atmosphere
• Variations in the sun’s energy reaching Earth
• Changes in the reflectivity of Earth’s atmosphere and surface

These factors have caused Earth’s climate to change many times.
Scientists have pieced together a picture of Earth’s climate, dating back hundreds of thousands of years, by analyzing a number of indirect measures of climate such as ice cores, tree rings, glacier lengths, pollen remains, and ocean sediments, and by studying changes in Earth’s orbit around the sun.[SUP] [1][/SUP]
The historical record shows that the climate system varies naturally over a wide range of time scales. In general, climate changes prior to the Industrial Revolution in the 1700s can be explained by natural causes, such as changes in solar energy, volcanic eruptions, and natural changes in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations.[SUP] [1][/SUP]
Recent climate changes, however, cannot be explained by natural causes alone. Research indicates that natural causes are very unlikely to explain most observed warming, especially warming since the mid-20th century. Rather, human activities can very likely explain most of that warming.

 

[Flying Crane]

And then there is "Climategate"...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/



Image via Wikipedia

written by James Taylor, of the Heartland Institute??? Now THAT'S FUNNY STUFFF!!!! HAHAHAHAHA!!!

bill, you have zero credibility. zero.

 

[Flying Crane]

Again from Wikipedia, here's some info on The Heartland Institute, one of Billc's favorite sources of info. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute



In the 1990s, the group worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question serious cancer risks to secondhand smoke, and to lobby against government public-health reforms.[SUP][12][/SUP][SUP][13][/SUP][SUP][14][/SUP] More recently, the Institute has focused on questioning the science of human-caused climate change, and was described by the New York Times as "the primary American organization pushing climate change skepticism."[SUP][15][/SUP] The Institute has sponsored meetings of climate change skeptics,[SUP][16][/SUP] and has been reported to promote public school curricula challenging the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change.[SUP][17]

AND THERE'S MORE:

Heartland Institute questions scientific opinion on climate change, arguing that global warming is not occurring and, further, that warming might be beneficial if it did occur.[SUP][19][/SUP] The institute is a member organization of the Cooler Heads Coalition, which describes itself as "an informal and ad-hoc group focused on dispelling the myths of global warming."[SUP][20][/SUP] In Merchants of Doubt,Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway wrote that the Heartland Institute was known "for its persistent questioning of climate science, for its promotion of 'experts' who have done little, if any, peer-reviewed climate research, and for its sponsorship of a conference in New York City in 2008 alleging that the scientific community's work on global warming is fake."[SUP][14]

AND THERE'S MORE:

In 2013 the Institute falsely portrayed a translation of one of its documents on global warming by the Chinese Academy of Sciences as a major shift towards skepticism by China's leaders.[SUP][24][/SUP][SUP][25][/SUP] This was despite a preface in the translation saying it was to help them understand the public debate and was not an endorsement of the position contained in the document.[SUP][26][/SUP]

AND YET MORE:


Between 2008 and 2012 the Heartland Institute sponsored seven International Conferences on Climate Change, bringing together hundreds of global warming skeptics. Convention speakers have included Richard Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at MIT; Roy Spencer, a research scientist and climatologist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville; S. Fred Singer, [OH YEAH, THAT GUY AGAIN...]who is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute[SUP][27][/SUP] and was founding dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at the University of Miami and founding director of the National Weather Satellite Service; Harrison Schmitt, a geologist and former NASA astronaut and Apollo 17 moonwalker; and Dr. John Theon, atmospheric scientist and former NASA supervisor. In the first conference, participants criticized the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore.[SUP][13][/SUP][SUP][28][/SUP] The BBC reported that the heavily politicized nature of the Heartland conferences led some "moderate" climate skeptics to avoid them.[SUP][16][/SUP]At the conclusion of the 2012 7th International Conference, held at the Chicago Hilton, Heartland president Joseph Bast announced that the organization was discontinuing the conferences.[SUP][29][/SUP]

AND MORE AGAIN...

Smoking[edit]

In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with Philip Morris to question the link between secondhand smoke and health risks.[SUP][13][/SUP][SUP][36][/SUP] Philip Morris used Heartland to distribute tobacco-industry material, and arranged for the Heartland Institute to publish "policy studies" which summarized Philip Morris reports.[SUP][36][/SUP][SUP][37][/SUP] The Heartland Institute also undertook a variety of other activities on behalf of Philip Morris, including meeting with legislators, holding "off-the-record" briefings, and producing op-eds, radio interviews, and letters.[SUP][36][/SUP][SUP][38][/SUP] In 1994, at the request of Philip Morris, the Heartland Institute met with Republican Congressmen to encourage them to oppose increases in the federal excise tax. Heartland reported back to Philip Morris that the Congressmen were "strongly in our camp", and planned further meetings with other legislators.[SUP][39][/SUP]

[/SUP][/SUP]
GOOD STUFF, THAT.
and some more...

Oil and gas companies have contributed to the Heartland Institute, including over $600,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005.[SUP][51][/SUP] Greenpeace reported that Heartland received almost $800,000 from ExxonMobil.[SUP][23][/SUP] In 2008, ExxonMobil said that they would stop funding to groups skeptical of climate warming, including Heartland.[SUP][51][/SUP][SUP][52][/SUP][SUP][53][/SUP] Joseph Bast, president of the Heartland Institute, argued that ExxonMobil was simply distancing itself from Heartland out of concern for its public image.[SUP][51][/SUP]
The Heartland Institute has also received funding and support from tobacco companies Philip Morris,[SUP][36][/SUP] Altria and Reynolds American, and pharmaceutical industry firms GlaxoSmithKline,Pfizer and Eli Lilly.[SUP][47][/SUP] State Farm Insurance, USAA and Diageo are former supporters.[SUP][54][/SUP] The Independent reported that Heartland's receipt of donations from Exxon and Philip Morris indicates a "direct link"..."between anti-global warming sceptics funded by the oil industry and the opponents of the scientific evidence showing that passive smoking can damage people's health."[SUP][13][/SUP]
As of 2006, the Walton Family Foundation (run by the family of the founder of Wal-Mart) had contributed approximately $300,000 to Heartland. The Heartland Institute published an op-ed in theLouisville Courier-Journal defending Wal-Mart against criticism over its treatment of workers. The Walton Family Foundation donations were not disclosed in the op-ed, and the editor of theCourier-Journal stated that he was unaware of the connection and would probably not have published the op-ed had he known of it.[SUP][55][/SUP] The St. Petersburg Times described the Heartland Institute as "particularly energetic defending Wal-Mart."[SUP][55][/SUP] Heartland has stated that its authors were not "paid to defend Wal-Mart" and did not receive funding from the corporation; it did not disclose the $300,000+ received from the Walton Family Foundation.[SUP][55][/SUP]
In 2012, following the February 2012 document leak (see below) and a controversial advertising campaign, the institute lost substantial funding as corporate donors sought to dissociate themselves from the institute. According to the advocacy group Forecast the Facts, Heartland lost more than $825,000, or one third of planned corporate fundraising for the year. The shortfall led to the Illinois coal lobby sponsoring the institute's May 2012 climate conference – the "first publicly acknowledged donations from the coal industry".[SUP][34][/SUP] Following the leak they also lost "a couple of directors and almost its entire branch in Washington, DC."[SUP][56][/SUP]



So that's The Heartland Institute.

These are the people that Billc likes to rely on for his facts and information about Climate Change. So far I don't see any credible sources of information. All these people are shown to have an agenda set on disproving climate change (as opposed to genuine scientific research on the topic), as well as dubious financial connections to the Fossil Fuel Industry and other 'interesting' industries like Big Tobacco and taking money from Walmart in exchange for taking a defensive posture on how Walmart treats its employees.

It's an interesting piece, people might want to go to Wikipedia and read the whole thing.

Zero credibility.

 

[ballen0351]

as compared to the huge money to be gained by the fossil fuels industry because there is still oil and coal to be gotten and profited from. They have a huge financial interest in convincing everyone that there's nothing to worry about, so they can continue to profit thru pollution. yeah, it's energy and we do need energy, but it is disastrously pollutive. Their financial interest is vastly the larger.

Lol so when your team cooks the books for green energy its cool but if fossil fuels companies do it well that's bad. Well when you give up your fossil fuel use then you can lecture me until then....well I might take my 78 ford bronco that gets about 8mpgs out for a spin tonight.