Caveat lector.

Healthcare IT News reports (via the California HealthCare Foundation's iHealthBeat) on a think-tank study that slams the Federal government's health IT initiatives. That's odd. Washington's health IT projects  seem to me to be among their better accomplishments of the last eight years. (Not perfect by a long shot, and too "consumer health" driven, but on the right track.)

We always need to read between the lines. In this cases, phrases like this one from the study's presenters caught my attention: "... the federal government is woefully incapable of changing or eliminating outdated rules and regulations. So we will be stuck for all time with whatever they come up with today."

That seemed like pretty harsh language, not to mention a rigid perspective, for a "research study."  (As opposed to say, a blog post.)  After all, while we're not shy around here about noting the limits of government capability (and have the nasty comments to prove it), the Internet wouldn't exist if not for government funding. And we pride ourselves on not injecting political biases into our own research.

So I did a little Googling on the think tank in question, the "Heartland Institute," and here's what I found:

Their self-stated mission is to "discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems." They believe that "activists use junk science to stampede the public into fearing chemicals in the air, food, and water, and the possible consequences of poorly understood phenomena such as climate change." They say our environment is so much better now that "air pollution is no longer a significant threat to public health."

You heard me right.  Childhood asthma's up 75%, and the Schwarzenegger Administration's Air Resources Board reports that "over 90 percent of Californians breathe unhealthy levels of one or more air pollutants during some part of the year."  But for these guys it's "What Me Worry?"

SourceWatch states that Heartland is closely tied to the tobacco industry, received funding from ExxonMobil, and took in more than $2 million in revenue than it spent in 2005. It has also received funding from a number of far-right foundations, says SourceWatch.

That's the baggage that the Heartland Institute brings to its study.  But if government's so hapless when it comes to technology, why do primary care doctors in North America lag behind their counterparts in Europe - you know, the ones who labor under socialist oppression - when it comes to the use of health IT?

The health economy is complex in this country, and it rarely lends itself to black-and-white solutions based on ideology and self-interest. As I was saying, caveat lector - which means let the reader beware.¹

(¹That is, if I remember my Latin correctly, which is hardly a sure thing.)

"The city is attempting to force manufacturers to recycle electronics, which it has no authority to do," said Jim Lesczynski, media relations director for the Manhattan Libertarian Party.

New York City "is refusing to [implement] curbside electronics recycling for residents," Lesczynski said, even though the city's Department of Sanitation has a monopoly on waste removal within the city.

"In a free market, some private sanitation companies may also refuse to pick up electronics, but competitors would surely step in to provide a needed service," Lesczynski said.

Lesczynski said such a market-based solution in the New York proposal is currently out of the question because the city "actually [makes] it illegal to 'steal' garbage set out for recycling."

The new law goes into effect in 2012 and impose fines of $100 on citizens who fail to recycle their electronics.

I wrote about one recent example just over a week ago after I read that Dennis Avery, a "Senior Fellow" at the Heartland Institute, wrote and widely published an article, "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares". The biggest problem with that article? Many of the scientists listed never gave their consent to be listed. So the scientists did what they should have done: asked to have their names removed from Avery's propaganda. Then what happened?

Via frankbi, a few things have happened. First, the title was changed:

The title of the 14 Sep press release has been changed from

500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares: Alphabetical List

to

500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares

This happened between 2 May and 4 May. Were any of the scientists' names removed? Of course not! That wouldn't jive with the propaganda, now would it. I mean, Exxon and other corporations have paid millions of dollars to have their crap spewed by "reputable institutions". Admitting they were lying wouldn't achieve that goal.

Now, the debacle has reached a wider audience: the New Zealand media. You know, New Zealand, where science is actually respected. The U.S. corporate media? They likely think this is how things should happen. Now, H.I.'s President Joe Bast says there will be no further changes either to the title of the paper or those cited as supporting its flawed conclusions.

This constitutes a complete disregard for accepted methodologies within responsible, professional organizations. This constitutes a complete lack of "taking responsibility" for one's actions. This serves as just the latest example of why the right-wing is slowly losing influence: their actions and intentions just aren't credible. I haven't heard one way or the other, but I wonder if legal pressure is being considered. I know if my name were on that list, I'd do everything (legal and ethical) I could to remove it.

The problem really manifests itself when "analysts" (propagandists) from the Heartland Institute or the Independence Institute get attention in the corporate media. They're brought on as guests to right-wing radio shows and invited to write columns in major newspapers, as though they're serious, neutral professionals. And what's the first thing they always parrot? That peer-reviewed science journal articles constitute junk science, and their "science" is without bias.

This case demonstrates something very important: if the denialist propagandists lie and act unethically so easily, why are they taken seriously by the corporate media? Because they're connected and they have an agenda.

Thankfully, more citizens and businesses are taking the threat of climate change seriously. They're acting of their own volition. They're actually following the right-wing's advice and taking responsibility for their actions. Those millions of propaganda dollars spent by Big Energy? It's turning into a wasted investment.

h/t DeSmogBlog

]]> http://thevigilantlens.wordpress.com/?p=224 Wed, 07 May 2008 20:06:47 +0000 lens1 http://thevigilantlens.wordpress.com/?p=224

Dan Miller of the Tobacco Institute of Lies and Huge Payola, Heartland Institute, wrote a poor confused soul in Wenatchee to set him straight about Global Warming. Read it here. Dan used to work for the Chicago Sun-Times. Dan is one of those "journalists" who has been peddling propaganda for a long time.

Dan, can I call you Dan? What in Gods cooling planet are you doing reading the Wenatchee World? If trying to direct poor Wenatcheeist's to your institutes stupid theories is all you have left, wow. Propaganda's failing you Danny...

Some words of wisdom Dan. Words spoken by the President of Shell Oil, John Hofmeister at a recent event in ubur-liberal Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. "As far as Shell is concerned, the debate over global warming is over – arguing only delays the inevitable and increases its cost." Time to send Shell Oil a Tim Eyman email, eh Dan?

For the confused citizens of Wenatchee, read about Dan and his Heartland Institute, here and one more here. Enjoy.....and be kind to your yoga instructor.

Dennis T. Avery of the Heartland Institute.

In two previous posts, I looked at the PR techniques used by the tobacco industry to create doubt about the health risks of smoking, and how these techniques have been transferred to the global warming debate. The need to manufacture a sense of scientific uncertainty is a recurring theme in the strategies. One approach is to put together a panel of rival experts.

Here, Fred Panzer, vice-president of the Tobacco Institute, puts forward the "Roper Proposal" for a panel of experts to counter the Surgeon General's report on the health effects of smoking ^[1]. The year is 1972:

Select a panel of experts to consult on the design of the study. Ideally they would be prestige figures who would initially have a solid contribution to make and who would also be willing to endorse the study publicly at a later stage. [...] If the results are favorable, release them as a book [...] In effect, such a book would be a counter-Surgeon General’s report. [...] And best of all, it would only have to be seen – not read – to be believed…just like the Surgeon General’s report.

F. Panzer, The Roper Proposal, 1972
Bates No. 2024274199/4202 ^[1]

Moving forward thirty years, Republican public opinion researcher Frank Luntz sets out a plan to cope with the scientific evidence for global warming. Again, a panel of experts is needed ^[2]:

You need to be even more active in recruiting experts who are sympathetic to your view, and much more active in making them part of your message.

Frank Luntz,
Winning the Global Warming Debate – An Overview ^[2]

The Heartland Institute promotes tobacco and oil interests, so it seems to be ideally suited to the task. Sure enough, Heartland's Dennis Avery has now had a go at compiling a list of experts who doubt man-made global warming. In the event, things haven't gone smoothly for him. The trick is to find experts "sympathetic to your view". That's the detail he's overlooked.

Let's see how Dennis fared. In September 2007 he produced a press release headlined "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares: Alphabetical List" ^[3] [4], claiming:

The following list includes more than 500 qualified researchers whose research in professional journals provides historic and/or physical proxy evidence that:

1)  Most of the recent global warming has been caused by a long, moderate, natural cycle rather than by the burning of fossil fuels;
  [...and six more listed items...]

Dennis T. Avery,
500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made
Global Warming Scares: Alphabetical List ^[3]

Attached to the press release was the list of the 500 scientists. The title of the list is "Co‑Authors: Alphabetical List" ^[5]. The scientists' research isn't simply being cited in support of the Heartland Institute's claims. The scientists are listed as coauthors of the Heartland report.

The list of Dennis Avery's coauthors immediately looks odd. Some of the scientists are dead, some don't exist ^[6], and the deceased astrologer Theodor Landscheidt is on it. Extraordinarily, Michael Mann, the author of the "hockey stick" paper, and one of the scientists running the RealClimate blog, is on the list as a coauthor "whose research contradicts man-made global warming" !

Something doesn't add up. Last month Kevin Grandia of the DeSmogBlog climate blog started emailing the scientists Dennis Avery names as his coauthors ^{[7] [8] [9] [10]}. It turns out that their role in the report has come as a complete surprise to many of them. Here's a sample of the scientists' comments to DeSmogBlog: "lack of scruples"; "totally unethical";  "outraged that they've included me";  "misrepresents my research"  and "a major ethical transgression".

"I am horrified to find my name on such a list"  writes Prof. David Sugden of the University of Edinburgh (or "Edinborough" as Dennis Avery spells it – geography's not his strong point either). Here are some more of the comments DeSmogBlog has received from the scientists named by Dennis Avery as his "coauthors". Some of the emails were sent directly to Joseph Bast, Heartland's president:

So it turns out that Dennis Avery hasn't quite got the hang of the "list-of-experts" routine. He forgot to check that his "coauthors" actually hold the views he attributes to them. In fact, he forgot to check with them at all. It's hard to say how Dennis Avery came up with his list of 500 coauthors, but many of them don't seem to be too happy about being on his list. Normally, coauthorship would require the knowledge and agreement of the named coauthor. Indeed, the coauthor might even be expected to actually write some part of the report.

State Of Play

May 4, 2008: 
Where do things stand today? Has the Heartland Institute responded to the scientists' requests and modified its list of "coauthors" yet?

No, but rather amusingly they have retrospectively edited the headline of the press release, while keeping the publication date the same. The original headline was "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares: Alphabetical List". That's quietly been altered to "500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares". The blogger F. Bi prudently kept a cached copy and spotted the change ^[11]. Here's the cached copy of the original ^[3], and the modified current version ^[4]. It just goes to show, nothing ever disappears on the internet.

May 5, 2008: 
Heartland has issued a new press release responding to DeSmogBlog's investigation ^[12] (Heartland's response is covered by DeSmogBlog here ^[13]). This is what Heartland's president Joseph Bast says about the change of headline:

[...] In response to the complaints, The Heartland Institute has changed the headlines that its PR department had chosen for some of the documents related to the lists, from “500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares” to “500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares.”
[...]
We plan to make no further changes to the articles or to the lists.

Joseph Bast,
Heartland Foundation, May 5, 2008 ^[12]

Bizarrely, Bast goes on to ask "Why did DeSmogBlog and the disgruntled scientists wait seven months to express their displeasure?"  Well, the scientists hadn't been notified that they were named as coauthors, and maybe they just don't study the Heartland Institute's press releases on a daily basis.

References

"Something phenomenal has happened in the last 24 hours. Our friends over at DeSmogBlog took it upon themselves to see what the scientists who are on the famed list of “500 scientists who don’t believe in global warming” actually think and as it turns out, many of them didn’t know they were on it."

Continue reading at this link.

Pretty freakin' awesome.

A leading global warming denyer outfit, the Heartland Institute, has been called out by scientists whose work they misrepresented. What happened? Well, the Heartland Institute held a conference back in early March called the 'Climate Skeptics' Conference. Following the conference, the Institute made sure to distribute widely (the Vast portion of the Vast Right Wing Machine) an article entitled, "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares." Wow, that sounds impressive, doesn't it?

As it turns out, it's not so impressive. Dennis T. Avery, a "Senior Fellow" at Heartland and director of the Hudson Institute, wrote the article. He should have done a better job. An activist looked at the 500 names and emailed 122 scientists Monday afternoon. At last count, 45 of them have responded, rightfully outraged, that their work in no way supports Avery's conclusions and have demanded that their names be removed. If you're familiar with the Oregon Petition, this event falls neatly in line with that bogus effort. Those 45 scientists issues responses only in the first 24 hours following emails being sent to them. I expect there will be others moving forward.

Is there a special interest that has a history of funding Heartland? Of course: ExxonMobil. Importantly, Exxon is not the only source of funds. However:

Heartland’s extreme anti-environmentalism no doubt spawns from its supporters. Between 1998 and 2005, oil giant ExxonMobil gave nearly $800,000 to Heartland. The group’s Board of Directors also explains the group’s climate change denials:

– Thomas Walton is the Director of Economic Policy at General Motors.

–James L. Johnston is a former senior economist for oil company Amoco Corporation.

–Walter F. Buchholtz is a former member of Heartland’s board of directors and worked as ExxonMobil’s Senior Issues Advisor.

See, here's the thing: climate change is completely supported by peer-reviewed research articles that have been presented in scientific journals. As I've noted before, the only problem that research has is, as incomplete as it is, it has so far underestimated the effects of human-caused climate change. Understandably, the research and forecasts of future effects has also failed to incorporate unforseen feedbacks, such as millions of acres of trees that have been killed by mountain pine beetles releasing their stored carbon into the atmosphere.

In the larger scheme, however, this event, and others before it, clearly demonstrate a lack of integrity from the right-wing's global warming denialists. If they can't find 500 scientists willing to put their names up for Avery's article, they shouldn't trumpet their efforts to do so. This is a cheap gimmick designed to lend credence to their argument. Their lack of honesty has efficiently taken any such credence away.

This is how desperate the fringe right-wing is, folks. They have to cobble together names of supporters without first notifying them, despite the fact that those scientists' work don't advance their ideology's argument. If their arguments and positions were solid, they wouldn't have to lie and distract to attract attention and support. But instead we are forced to watch spectacles like this. If the facts worked in their favor, there wouldn't be such a large machine spending millions of dollars per year to convince the public of them.

The Heartland Institute is fairly well-known as a conservative- and corporate-funded 'think tank' designed to promote conservative partisan platforms (in other words, propagandize 'conservative' views). To the point, among other backers, Exxon had funded Heartland to the tune of nearly $800,000 in recent years and execs with Amoco and Exxon have also served on the Heartland Institute Board of Directors.

Mr. Littlemore had a hunch that Heartland's "list" of 500 scientists wasn't on the up and up so he started emailing the people listed. He's been getting plenty of feedback about Heartland's use of so many people's names with at least 45 telling him directly they're name was used without permission and falsely since they actually disagree with the Dorothys chirping 'there's no such thing as climate change, there's no such thing as climate change...'

Here is just one note Mr. Littlemore was cc'ed on:

I have NO doubts ..the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there.

Dr. Gregory Cutter, Professor, Department of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Old Dominion University

Why did the conservatives at Heartland feel a need to lie and, in so doing, mock these scientists? Disgraceful.

The only people who ought to be doubtful here? The folks on the receiving end of Heartland's propagandist fallacies.

DeSmogBlog decided to take a look at Heartland's list: emailing the scientists to ask them about the situation. From 500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares:

• The Heartland "article purports to list scientists whose work contradicts the overwhelming scientific agreement that human-induced climate change is endangering the world as we know it."
• "DeSmogBlog ... emailed 122 of the scientists ... calling their attention to the list."
• "in less than 24 hours - three dozen of those scientists had responded in outrage, denying that their research supports Avery's conclusions and demanding that their names be removed."

Hmmm, maybe Heartland should change the title from 500 scientists to 464 scientists maybe have documented doubts of man-made global warming scares until, of course, they are asked whether they agree with this article's assertion.

DeSmogBlog has some pretty impressive quotes.  For example,

I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last 20 years arguing the opposite.

Dr. David Sugden. Professor of Geography, University of Edinburgh

This ones seems pretty unclear, doesn't it.  Easy why Heartland could be confused and reverse the understanding of 20 years of a professor's work.

I have NO doubts ..the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there.

Dr. Gregory Cutter, Professor, Department of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Old Dominion University

Hmmm ... Will Heartland remove Cutter from their list?

I don't believe any of my work can be used to support any of the statements listed in the article.

Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford

Evidently Heartland disagrees with how one should understand and interpret Professor Whittaker's life work.

Skeptical about skeptics.  A pretty good rule of thumb.

Mike Rosen introduced Maureen Martin as a "senior fellow for legal affairs at the Heartland Institute". That's sounds impressive, doesn't it? The Heartland Institute is only one think tank among many that focus on "free market" approaches. It has become more clear to Coloradans recently what kind of "free market" these advocates would like to move toward: indentured servitude, human trafficking, child prostitution and compulsory abortions, via the Schaffer-Abramoff proposal. No thanks, Bob, Mike, Maureen and Co. I actually support workers' rights - they're what created and what sustain the middle class.

Moving on, guess which corporation donates to the Heartland Institute. ExxonMobil Corp. ExxonMobil gave the Heartland Institute $561,500 from 1998 to 2005, including $119,000 in 2005 alone. 2006 was no different, with $115,000 making its way into Heartland's funding. Further, Heartland is not the only think tank to receive funding from Exxon. What kind of material do you think Exxon would like to see come out of Heartland? Papers and staff acknowledging the crisis looming before us in climate change? Or staff and papers claiming that climate change is just a "mass delusion" and attacking people who have spent their careers studying our climate system? Well, Exxon posted an $11.66 billion profit in just one three-month period earlier this year, and counted up $40.61 billion last year. Those numbers increased by 30% from just one year ago. Exxon obviously has no interest in seeing climate change challenged by rich "free marketeers", does it?

Given all that, do you think Mike Rosen told his audience that Maureen Martin's Heartland Institute is funded by Big Oil? Of course not. Despite being proud "free marketeers", they don't fully inform listeners of petty details like that. That isn't in the publics' best interest. It's deceitful and cowardly. Unfortunately, I've come to expect that behavior from Mr. Rosen.

Maureen Martin was on Mike's show to showcase a batch of letters Heartland received from a class of sixth graders in California. Apparently, the first international climate change denyers convention attracted their teacher's attention. CMM didn't get into the details of what's going on in the classroom, but as presented, this scenario troubles me. What exactly is Michael Steria teaching in the classroom? It's listed as a public school. Is denialist propaganda part of the district's approved materials? Was he presenting an alternative viewpoint as part of a larger lesson? If students are taught that climate change is a hoax, they're going to be in for a rude shock by the time they go to college and have to live on their own. This approach is an attack on science and needs to end.

"Who is the one making all the money off of global warming? Al Gore!"

"I don't believe in global warming because the earth goes through natural warming cycles."

I become more and more apalled as I read online forum comments and articles touting that global warming is an elaborate hoax and will come to be nothing more than a gigantic Y2K fiasco.

What is most disturbing is those organizations and "scientists" who are getting paid to trump these lies to the public.

Case in point is the Heartland Institute.

This organization says its mission is "to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems." Furthermore, the institute claims to be a non-partisan, non-profit organization that is unaffiliated with any businesses.

However, the institute has been documented as receiving $561,500 in funding from ExxonMobil from 1998-2005. The company also receives funding from Phillip Morris, the tobacco company. In addition, the Board of Directors for the Heartland Institute includes Thomas Walton, Director, Economic Policy Analysis, General Motors Coorporation.

Needless to say, the Heartland Institute denies that second-hand smoke is dangerous and says that global warming is an unproven farce. It even recently held a conference with the purpose of convincing people that global warming is a myth and is not a crisis.

The Heartland Institute's research on global warming is laughable. The institute states that global warming is not a crisis, yet one of the organization's very own researchers found the following:

• Eighty-two percent of climate scientists agreed with the statement, “We can say for certain that global warming is a process already underway.”

• About 56 percent agreed when asked, “Do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic (man-made) causes?”About 14 percent were unsure.

First, this sample was non-scientific; it was placed on the Web site for the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. Furthermore, I would argue that the true percentage of scientists who believe that global warming is due to anthropegenic causes is actually much higher. Most scientific organizations, including the American Geophysical Union, the American Astronomical Society, American Physical Society, the Federation of American Scientists, Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, and the European Geosciences Union, have released statements that conclude that global warming is happening, and it is due to man-made technologies. Many of these organizations have also concluded that swift action must be taken.

However, let's say that the Heartland Institute's research is correct. Is it not enough that nearly 60 percent of scientists surveyed by the institute think that global warming is caused by man-made processes, with only slightly more than a quarter of scientists saying that it isn't?

Let's say there is a 60-percent chance that you will get mugged if you walk outside alone at night without any protection (pepper spray, for example). Would you continue to walk alone at night sans protection because there is still a 40-percent chance that you will not get mugged?

It is crucial that people understand that even IF global warming is not caused by humans we need protect our planet and our future. Furthermore, we have the responsibility to be stewards to the earth regardless of our beliefs about global warming. How dare we pollute and rob the land that gives us so much? We ought take care of our environment and invest in clean energies from a pure moral standpoint.

The Heartland Institute was a member organization of the Cooler Heads Coalition which questioned the impact of global warming and claimed that climate control policies hurt consumers. It seems that this is already a popular farse by global warming skeptics, although the rise of green technologies in markets across the world has actually improved economic viability in many countries.

This type of stereotypical "global warming policy hurts the economy" view could have detrimental effects in the long run. What if global warming meets all of our worst predictions? Its effects will cost us an invaluable amount of money, resources and human lives. However, if we engage in responsible practices to mitigate the possible effects of global warming, and it turns out that it really was a hoax, we STILL benefit from a cleaner, more livable and sustainable environment. So either way, we win. Unless we follow the advice of organizations such as the Heartland Institute, who thinks we should not do anything to mitigate global warming.

Scrive infatti Franco Battaglia nelle prime righe:

È bene avvisare subito i lettori che la scienza ha già dimostrato che col riscaldamento globale l'uomo non c'entra, come fa fede il Rapporto del N-Ipcc - presentato a New York lo scorso 3 marzo e naturalmente ignorato dal Tg1 - dall'inequivocabile titolo: «È la natura e non le attività umane a governare il clima». L'N-Ipcc è un organismo scientifico internazionale, simile all'Ipcc ma privo del controllo politico dei governi (la «N» sta per «non-governativo»), di cui fanno parte fisici dell'atmosfera, geologi, climatologi e scienziati di scienze affini.

L'articolo l'ho trovato grazie a una segnalazione pubblicata a commento di un post del blog "Progetto Galileo", che giustamente aveva fatto notare varie incongruenze nelle corrispondenze dei quotidiani sull'argomento.

Lì si faceva notare che l'articolo è categorico, ma la frase che ho citato non è solo categorica: è una boiata pazzesca (non so se in buona fede).

E' assai raro che la scienza dimostri o smentisca in modo inequivocabile nulla, e davvero è difficile accettare l'idea che possa averlo fatto su un argomento controverso come il mutamento climatico.

Io premetto che non ho competenze in tema di clima, ma ne ho qualcuna in tema di manipolazione della stampa e della pubblica opinione, in cui tipicamente chi vuole difendere interessi economici minacciati da una teoria scientifica utilizza un paravento con credenziali scientifiche molto più apparenti che reali, e che spesso vive di finanziamenti provenienti da parti in causa.

Consiglio (anche a Franco Battaglia, che non conosco) la lettura della pagina dedicata al report pubblicato da questo "panel" dal sito SOURCEWATCH - Your guide to the names behind the news (la tua guida ai nomi che stanno dietro le notizie), che scrive, tra le altre cose (la traduzione è mia):

La conferenza internazionale sui mutamenti climatici del 2008 si è tenuta al Marriott New York Marquis Times Square Hotel di New York tra il 2 e il 4 marzo. La conferenza è stata organizzata e "sponsorizzata" dall'Heartland Institute, una "think tank" statunitense che negli scorsi anni ha ricevuto sostanziosi finanziamenti dalla Exxon per il suo lavoro nello sminuire il significato del riscaldamento globale.

Poi cita due articoli del Washington Post e del New York Times che guarda caso non sono giunti alla conclusione di Battaglia, e al contrario hanno sottolineato come questo Panel sia composto da una ventina di persone appena, neanche tutte con competenze scientifiche.

E qui viene da chiedersi se sia solo ingenuità quella che porta alcuni a trasformare - come fa l'articolo del Giornale - la legittima critica sui toni esagerati usati da tanti mass-media su uno specifico iceberg in una critica che presenta come non scientifiche le posizioni più diffuse e condivise in tema di riscaldamento globale e viceversa come "dimostrazione scientifica" il documento prodotto in un week-end in un costoso hotel di Manhattan da una ventina di speaker invitati a presenziare con soggiorno pagato e gettone di 1.000 dollari a testa.

03/21/08

Contact: R. Lee Wrights

lee@votemary2008.com

1-888-412-9903

THE DOCTOR IS IN

Ruwart Enters Presidential Race

Burnet, TX -- Two months ahead of its national convention in Denver, the Libertarian Party's already crowded field of candidates grew by one on Friday as Dr. Mary J. Ruwart announced her candidacy for the LP's 2008 presidential nomination.

Responding to an informal draft effort conducted by party activists, the author of Amazon.Com #1 bestseller _Healing Our World in an Age of Aggression_ launched her campaign web site and announced plans to begin addressing state party conventions and other political events with the intent of challenging Republican candidate John McCain and the Democratic Party's as yet unnamed nominee for the support of America's voters.

"Libertarians have been waiting for a candidate who can change the tone of American politics," says campaign manager R. Lee Wrights. "Dr. Ruwart is that kind of candidate. She's a unifier and a motivator who can communicate our message of freedom and be heard."

Running on a theme of "Healing America," Ruwart -- a Ph.D and former Assistant Professor of Surgery with a background in pharmaceutical research -- proposes to withdraw US forces from Iraq, drastically reduce federal taxes and spending, and deregulate health care to increase access and quality.

"Only liberty can heal the rifts that divide and impoverish America," says Ruwart, 57. "Freedom breeds compassion, tolerance and prosperity. Coercion breeds conflict, fear and poverty." In _Healing Our World_ and _Short Answers to the Tough Questions_, she propounds a caring, rather than combative, approach to promoting the Libertarian Party's political agenda.

Ruwart earned a BS in biochemistry and a Ph.D in biophysics from Michigan State University. She has served on the Libertarian National Committee, as well as the boards of the International Society for Individual Liberty, the Fully Informed Jury Association and the Michigan chapter of the Heartland Institute. She lives with her husband, Ray, in Burnet, Texas.

Visit www.votemary2008.com for more information.

‹ Media Releases

More at SciAm.com: Even Skeptics Admit Global Warming is Real [Video]

With presentations like “Oceans, Not Carbon Dioxide, Are Driving Climate” by William Gray, and “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate” by S. Fred Singer, the conference was cleverly designed to downplay the impacts that industrial emissions are having on our climate. Singer, a George Mason University professor who has long railed against “junk science” showing tobacco smoke causes lung cancer, and sun exposure causes melanoma, is now intent on proving humans are not responsible for climate change. “Most climate change is natural,” he contends. The human contribution is not significant. Therefore, climate change is unstoppable.” In other words, Don’t Worry. Be happy.

For more information on the sponsorship of this conference by large tobacco and oil companies, see http://www.prwatch.org/node/7072. A list of the sponsors of this conference (mostly industry front groups with innocuous sounding names) can be found at: http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/sponsorships.cfm.

The biggest change I've made, though, wasn't due to a monthly goal at all. By moving to Old Town (necessitating the culling and negating the biking to work), I've decreased my footprints of all kinds (except the kind that I actually walk with). It's allowed me to sleep more, get more exercise, and use stairs at home instead of the elevator. After the flurry of move-driving, my car sat unused for almost a week: barring some specific errands and classes, it'll stay right where it is. Since it's been sitting, the price of gas has gone up 15 cents a gallon. The closest grocery stores- Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, Giant, MOM's, and the farmer's market- are all well stocked with organic and/or locally grown foods. Now I have to pay utilities separately, and I can have more direct control over how much energy I use- since I'll know how much it is. And I have three house mates who are wonderful, and wonderfully tractable, and whom I'm secretly (not very secretly) hoping to inflame.

Inflame with sustainability, that is. Anyway. A while back, I took myself to task for not having defined what sustainability means. I've worked on that a bit, and I've come up with something round about but better than nothing.

One definition of sustainable living isn't going to pertain to everyone- and it shouldn't. Everyone's got a different pet "green" issue- no plastic vs no cars vs global warming doesn't exist because it's cold out vs no nukes, etc. I'm not a zealous environmentalist. I don't think this problem can be solved with one fix (no oil!). In order to live sustainably, I must first and foremost be an open environmentalist, willing to consider differing points of view, and informed enough to determine which makes sense. Next, I must live practically and thoughtfully, with a view to finances and the human, environmental, and moral costs of my actions. Under this all, though, I must be able to live- work and play and learn and all that stuff. So much of sustainability is seen as limiting- we can't do this because of those whiny polar bears, we can't eat that because of the toxic wastes. I think the emphasis should be on how much can we do, individually and as humanity, while still living within sensible boundaries- how much can I do with how little?

The unanswered question there is, how little is little enough? I'll leave that hanging for now. I suspect it has something to do with "little enough so that everybody can use the same amount", but given the different ways to measure that (carbon footprint? resource use?), and that merely by living in the US I'm using way more than my fair share, it's intractable. The answer to climate change and sustainable living is not "move to a developing nation and start subsistence farming".

I think large environmental issues will only be solved through meaningful government and industry action, and only after we make some big technological innovations. I'm not holding my breath for government or industry help, though, and I'll do my small part to vote with magic machines and my money (for all it's still worth) in the meanwhile.

That's what I've got. Muddled, but let me know what you think. I appreciate discourse, after all- that's first!

Odds and Ends: I never did hang up that biodegradable plastic bag from Harris Teeter outdoors (I forget where I promised this, but I did, and someone asked a while ago, and I still haven't done it). When I find one, I'll hold onto it until I get some duct tape, and fulfill my promise. Also, remember that debate I was having with the conservative blogger? It's been so long since she called environmentalists Nazis and cited the Heartland Institute as a more authoritative body than the IPCC on the question of climate change that you've probably forgotten- I had, hurrah for archives. I pointed out certain factual and logical inaccuracies, she responded with silence, so I'll take the Godwin's Law victory and let it lie.

Thanks for your time, and your comments, and I'm excited for the next parts.  Keep coming back, but, oh ho, you'll have to, since I cleverly told you all about the last six months without revealing March's goal!  Mua hahaha.  Ha.  I'll let you know once I think of it, or by Wednesday.

Handmade update: Knit scarf, three inches done, one completed stripe.

Protest Earth Day by turning on your lights

"Not Fair and Balanced?

Weather Channel founder John Coleman is calling global warming a fraud and says the station he founded needs to stop telling people what to think about climate change. The Business and Media Institute reports Coleman was a speaker at the Heartland Institute's Climate Change Conference in New York. Coleman was referencing what some call the Weather Channel's global warming alarmism.

One of its meteorologists suggested two years ago that weathercasters who have doubts about global warming should lose their certification. Coleman advocates suing people who sell carbon credits — including Al Gore — because the attention in the courts could, in his words, "put some light on the fraud of global warming."

The two-day conference is actually getting quite a bit of media coverage — with stories in the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, New York Sun and many others."

Click here to view the Fox news article:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335030,00.html

The trancript of John Coleman's conversation is listed on Rush Limabaugh's website. Rush members can listen to it. Here are John Coleman's remarks:

 "BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
 
 
RUSH: John Coleman, who founded the Weather Channel, wants to sue Algore on this whole business of global warming being a hoax.  I have loved John Coleman ever since he used to be the weatherman at Good Morning America. He was on Fox & Friends today, and Steve Doocy said, "Why should Algore be sued?"

COLEMAN:  The whole backbone of the global warming "science" is what they called CO2 forcing.  This is carbon dioxide, and they say that this little trace compound in the atmosphere -- 38 molecules of carbon dioxide out of a hundred thousand molecules in our atmosphere, they say this little trace element -- puts the carbon in the air that forces the water vapor to create this uncontrollable global warming. It's gonna bring this climatic catastrophe.

DOOCY: Right. Right.

COLEMAN: All right, that's what they're finding.  Now, I don't believe that's the way it works at all.

DOOCY: Mmm-hmm. Mmm-hmm.

COLEMAN: I see absolutely no evidence that CO2, carbon dioxide, is causing any warm-up in temperatures.  I don't think it's happening. I'm asking the question:  If Al Gore knows that CO2 forcing is invalid -- isn't really happening -- and he goes ahead and sells these carbon credits for millions of dollars, is he committing financial fraud?  That is the question.

RUSH:  Doocy says, "Well, John, there's no disputing the temperature on the planet's gone up by one degree." Steve, it's come down a degree! The whole century gain was wiped out before recent temperature readings, and here's what Coleman said.

COLEMAN:  I dispute that.

DOOCY:  You do dispute that!

COLEMAN:  I think the whole statistics are somewhat questionable.  Where are they measuring this temperature?  Who's measuring it?  How are they handling the data? 

DOOCY:  The whole global warming thing is just a hyped scam?

COLEMAN:  Maybe over the last hundred years the temperature on planet Earth went up by close to a degree or so. 

DOOCY: Mmm-hmm?

COLEMAN: That's not a big deal.  In the last 12 months, the climate on earth has gone down by a full degree.  This has been the coldest winter in modern history globally.

DOOCY: Sure.

RUSH:  Amen.  John Coleman.  I love that guy.
 
 
 
 
END TRANSCRIPT "

Listen to Rush or go to Rush Limbaugh's site to learn more:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_030508/content/01125115.guest.html
 
 

A significant document, adopted by some 500 scientists and researchers. Well done!  At long last, a viable consensus seems to be emerging!

Also posted with comment at   Global Warming Politics.

Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change

"Global warming" is not a global crisis

We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change,

Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;

Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;

Recognising that the causes and extent of recently observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed 'consensus' among climate experts are false;

Affirming that attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change. Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing, human suffering;

Noting that warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder:

Hereby declare:

That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity's real and serious problems.

That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.

That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.

That adaptation as needed is massively more cost-effective than any attempted mitigation and that a focus on such mitigation will divert the attention and resources of governments away from addressing the real problems of their peoples.

That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.

Now, therefore, we recommend --

That world leaders reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided works such as "An Inconvenient Truth."

That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith.

Agreed at New York, 4 March 2008

Al Gore's belief in Global Warming leaves me suspicious of any of the talking points he and his crowd have on the subject.  And I am unwilling to let him off the hook for the notion that WARMING is the issue, even as he and his pals try to change the conversation to "climate change."  I have no doubt that climates change, and believe the historical data prove it.  What I am unconvinced of is that mankind is responsible for the extent of the cyclical rise in temperatures that occasions the earth from time to time.  How does one explain those rises in temperature through history when back then, so many fewer human beings inhabited the earth?  Or was it because there were that many more cows passing gas back then?

I admit that I relish the schadenfreude for old Al when reality flies in the face of his alarmist positions.  In spite of his accusations of global warming, North America is enduring one of those winters that is producing RECORD snowfall amounts through vast areas of the US and Canada.  By now, I would have assumed that certain coastal areas would be at least ankle deep in sea water from melted polar ice caps instead of huge areas of the northern plains and the northeast being shoulder deep in snow.

Persons who seem much more credible on the subject of weather dispute the idea of global warming.  This from Fox News' website on March 4, 2008:

Weather Channel founder John Coleman is calling global warming a fraud and says the station he founded needs to stop telling people what to think about climate change. The Business and Media Institute reports Coleman was a speaker at the Heartland Institute's Climate Change Conference in New York. Coleman was referencing what some call the Weather Channel's global warming alarmism.

One of its meteorologists suggested two years ago that weathercasters who have doubts about global warming should lose their certification.  Coleman advocates suing people who sell carbon credits — including Al Gore — because the attention in the courts could, in his words, "put some light on the fraud of global warming."

And this video from the Heartland Institute:

So, polish the Oscar, count your million dollar Nobel Prize award and put another log on the fire, Al.  Its cold outside!  Oh, by the way, I love your rendition of Summer Lovin'.

The first event was really a non-event. The last vestiges of a climate denier camp tried to play up doubt on climate and was greeted by one huge, collective yawn. (See this post for intelligent insight on climate tit-for-tat.) Such an event would have meant something two years ago. It means nothing now. Climate skeptics were once viewed with something between appreciation and respect by interested bystanders genuinely curious about this global warming thing they'd been hearing about. Climate skeptics are now increasingly viewed as crackpots, curmudgeons, or agenda-wielding cause advocates who are clothing their political interests in the name of climate science.

The Heartland Institute denier meeting came together on Monday. By Wednesday we saw just exactly why skeptic influence is over. The Energy and Air Quality subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee met to discuss climate policy in a four hour hearing. Gone from the agenda was the question that occupied previous sessions: is this really happening? On the agenda was a single question: what are we going to do about it? And deeper than just questions about the nature of a climate plan (cap and trade or carbon tax?), the hearing went into fine detail about trade considerations, tax incentives, how WTO mechanisms might interact with U.S. climate policy, and how to force China and India to play with us on climate.

Is this what a skeptic-influenced policy regime looks like? Or is this what it looks like when the collective decision has been made to do something about our climate risk, and the only question remaining is how we're going to herd the cats and fight our way out of this paper bag?