One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Cooling coming?
Page 1 of 3 next> last>>
Jun 28, 2019 00:00:58   #
nwtk2007 Loc: Texas
 
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/#4d7fad7e4dcf

Reply
Jun 28, 2019 00:28:45   #
Common_Sense_Matters
 
nwtk2007 wrote:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/#4d7fad7e4dcf


article author credentials (located at end of the opinion piece) wrote:
Peter Ferrara Contributor
I am Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Heartland Institute, Senior Advisor for Entitlement Reform and Budget Policy at the National Tax Limitation Foundation, General Counsel for the American Civil Rights Union, and Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis. I served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under President George H.W. Bush. I am a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, and the author most recently of America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb (New York: Harper Collins, 2011). I write about new, cutting edge ideas regarding public policy, particularly concerning economics.
Peter Ferrara Contributor br I am Director of Enti... (show quote)


Media Bias Fact Check wrote:
Overall, we rate the Heartland Institute Right Biased and Questionable based on promotion of anti-science propaganda, lack of t***sparency with funding, and more than 5 failed fact checks by IFCN fact checkers.


Source: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/heartland-institute/



Wikipedia wrote:
2012 documents incident
On February 14, 2012, the g****l w*****g blog DeSmogBlog published more than one hundred pages of Heartland documents said to be from the Institute. Heartland acknowledged that some internal documents had been stolen,[125] but said that one, the "Climate Strategy memo", was forged to discredit Heartland.[128][129][130]

The documents were initially anonymously sourced, but later found to have been obtained by climate scientist Peter Gleick.[130][131] The documents included a fundraising plan, board of directors meeting minutes, and the organization's 2012 budget.[132][133] The documents were analyzed by major media, including The New York Times, The Guardian, United Press International and the Associated Press. Donors to the Institute included the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, Microsoft, General Motors, Comcast, Reynolds American, Philip Morris, Amgen, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, P****r and Eli Lilly, liquor companies, and an anonymous donor who had given $13 million over the past five years.

The documents contained details of payments to support climate skeptics and their programs, namely the founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), physicist Fred Singer ($5,000 plus expenses per month), geologist Robert M. Carter ($1,667 per month) and $90,000 to blogger and former meteorologist Anthony Watts. The documents also revealed the Institute's plan to develop curriculum materials to be provided to teachers in the United States to promote climate skepticism, plans confirmed by the Associated Press.[115][125][134][135][136][137] The documents also disclosed Heartland's $612,000 plan to support Wisconsin Act 10 and to influence the Wisconsin's recall e******ns called "Operation Angry Badger."[125][138] Carter and Watts confirmed receiving payments.[135]

Several environmental organizations called on General Motors and Microsoft to sever their ties with Heartland. Climate scientists called on Heartland to "recognise how its attacks on science and scientists have poisoned the debate about c*****e c****e policy."[28]

Gleick described his actions in obtaining the documents as "a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics" and said that he "deeply regret[ted his] own actions in this case". He stated that "My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts—often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated—to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of t***sparency of the organizations involved."[139] On February 24 he wrote to the board of the Pacific Institute requesting a "temporary short-term leave of absence" from the Institute.[140][141] The Board of Directors stated it was "deeply concerned regarding recent events" involving Gleick and the Heartland documents, and appointed a new Acting Executive Director on February 27.[142] Gleick was later reinstated to the Pacific Institute after an investigation found Gleick did not forge any documents, and he apologized for using deception to get the documents.
2012 documents incident br On February 14, 2012, t... (show quote)


Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute#2012_documents_incident



http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/09/09/heartland-institute-nipcc-fail-the-credibility-test/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/15/leak-exposes-heartland-institute-climate

https://sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heartland_Institute

https://homelesscrisisinsfcompanies.tech.blog/2019/03/19/assessing-the-heartland-institute-and-its-credibility/

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/climatesciencewatch-com-heartland-institute-and-its-nipcc-report-fail-the-credibility-test-september-9-2013/



In the interest of fairness I was going to include the following two links but they fail to open.


https://www.heartland.org/about-us/reply-to-critics/index.html

https://www.heartland.org/about-us/what-theyre-saying/index.html



It would seem that Heartland Institute ISN'T trustworthy nor would I think it's faculty, of which Peter Ferrara, the Author of the Piece OP has presented published in Forbes' Opinion section, is one such faculty member.


Bonus information, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Ferrara.



Won't load.
Won't load....

Won't load #2.
Won't load #2....

Reply
Jun 28, 2019 02:16:29   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
Yada yada yada!

Reply
 
 
Jun 28, 2019 04:20:53   #
badbob85037
 
nwtk2007 wrote:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/#4d7fad7e4dcf


It's all caused by man and we will all be dead by 2015. Just ask anyone drooling inline at the welfare office and they will tell you. If you don't believe in G****l W*****g how will the Clintons and Algore get richer than they already are and the g*******t will have to think of another world destructive event to march us to new world order. Weather you are just stupid or real stupid you have to believe in g****l w*****g. Bill and Hillary, God bless them wouldn't steer you wrong.

Don't forget I sell carbon credits at a discount. Three for $25 and buy 4 for only $50

Reply
Jun 28, 2019 08:40:07   #
nwtk2007 Loc: Texas
 


So you prefer the unbiased views of CNN and MSNBC? LOLOL!!

Debunk his article.

Reply
Jun 28, 2019 10:38:19   #
JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida
 
nwtk2007 wrote:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/#4d7fad7e4dcf


Hope not. I like it hot, and so do the crops.

Reply
Jun 28, 2019 11:38:16   #
nwtk2007 Loc: Texas
 
JFlorio wrote:
Hope not. I like it hot, and so do the crops.


So do the food giants who have been investing big time in northern lands.

Reply
 
 
Jun 28, 2019 17:53:47   #
Common_Sense_Matters
 
nwtk2007 wrote:
So you prefer the unbiased views of CNN and MSNBC? LOLOL!!

Debunk his article.


Sorry, I don't have time to read trash. I love how you immediately assume that I watch CNN and MSNBC especially since I don't watch ANY cable news. About what we can expect from you, asinine assumptions, not based on any fact.

Reply
Jun 28, 2019 19:12:14   #
nwtk2007 Loc: Texas
 
Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
Sorry, I don't have time to read trash. I love how you immediately assume that I watch CNN and MSNBC especially since I don't watch ANY cable news. About what we can expect from you, asinine assumptions, not based on any fact.


Lol! I love how you don't read! Lol!!

It's over you, anyway.

And I'll bet I'm exactly right about you,too.

Reply
Jun 28, 2019 19:12:54   #
nwtk2007 Loc: Texas
 
Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
Sorry, I don't have time to read trash. I love how you immediately assume that I watch CNN and MSNBC especially since I don't watch ANY cable news. About what we can expect from you, asinine assumptions, not based on any fact.


Describe how its trash. Lol! You have no clue!

Reply
Jun 28, 2019 19:13:32   #
nwtk2007 Loc: Texas
 
Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
Sorry, I don't have time to read trash. I love how you immediately assume that I watch CNN and MSNBC especially since I don't watch ANY cable news. About what we can expect from you, asinine assumptions, not based on any fact.


What facts aren't there, boy??

Reply
 
 
Jun 28, 2019 19:40:22   #
Common_Sense_Matters
 
nwtk2007 wrote:
Lol! I love how you don't read! Lol!!

It's over you, anyway.

And I'll bet I'm exactly right about you,too.


Correct, I DON'T read trash, it is better burned than read. You are incorrect that anything it can post is above my ability to comprehend, if you can even read it, whether you can understand it or not, then it isn't likely beyond my comprehension. As for your bet... I doubt you are EVER right about ANYTHING, I had to change the parameters of your first sentence to even make your first statement correct if that tells you anything.

Reply
Jun 28, 2019 19:49:21   #
Common_Sense_Matters
 
nwtk2007 wrote:
Describe how its trash. Lol! You have no clue!


What part of,

Media Bias Fact check wrote:
Overall, we rate the Heartland Institute Right Biased and Questionable based on promotion of anti-science propaganda, lack of t***sparency with funding, and more than 5 failed fact checks by IFCN fact checkers.



Source: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/heartland-institute/



Wikipedia wrote:
2012 documents incident
On February 14, 2012, the g****l w*****g blog DeSmogBlog published more than one hundred pages of Heartland documents said to be from the Institute. Heartland acknowledged that some internal documents had been stolen,[125] but said that one, the "Climate Strategy memo", was forged to discredit Heartland.[128][129][130]

The documents were initially anonymously sourced, but later found to have been obtained by climate scientist Peter Gleick.[130][131] The documents included a fundraising plan, board of directors meeting minutes, and the organization's 2012 budget.[132][133] The documents were analyzed by major media, including The New York Times, The Guardian, United Press International and the Associated Press. Donors to the Institute included the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, Microsoft, General Motors, Comcast, Reynolds American, Philip Morris, Amgen, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, P****r and Eli Lilly, liquor companies, and an anonymous donor who had given $13 million over the past five years.

The documents contained details of payments to support climate skeptics and their programs, namely the founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), physicist Fred Singer ($5,000 plus expenses per month), geologist Robert M. Carter ($1,667 per month) and $90,000 to blogger and former meteorologist Anthony Watts. The documents also revealed the Institute's plan to develop curriculum materials to be provided to teachers in the United States to promote climate skepticism, plans confirmed by the Associated Press.[115][125][134][135][136][137] The documents also disclosed Heartland's $612,000 plan to support Wisconsin Act 10 and to influence the Wisconsin's recall e******ns called "Operation Angry Badger."[125][138] Carter and Watts confirmed receiving payments.[135]

Several environmental organizations called on General Motors and Microsoft to sever their ties with Heartland. Climate scientists called on Heartland to "recognise how its attacks on science and scientists have poisoned the debate about c*****e c****e policy."[28]

Gleick described his actions in obtaining the documents as "a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics" and said that he "deeply regret[ted his] own actions in this case". He stated that "My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts—often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated—to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of t***sparency of the organizations involved."[139] On February 24 he wrote to the board of the Pacific Institute requesting a "temporary short-term leave of absence" from the Institute.[140][141] The Board of Directors stated it was "deeply concerned regarding recent events" involving Gleick and the Heartland documents, and appointed a new Acting Executive Director on February 27.[142] Gleick was later reinstated to the Pacific Institute after an investigation found Gleick did not forge any documents, and he apologized for using deception to get the documents.
2012 documents incident br On February 14, 2012, t... (show quote)



Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute#2012_documents_incident



http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/09/09/heartland-institute-nipcc-fail-the-credibility-test/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/15/leak-exposes-heartland-institute-climate

https://sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heartland_Institute

https://homelesscrisisinsfcompanies.tech.blog/2019/03/19/assessing-the-heartland-institute-and-its-credibility/

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/climatesciencewatch-com-heartland-institute-and-its-nipcc-report-fail-the-credibility-test-september-9-2013/



In the interest of fairness I was going to include the following two links but they fail to open.


https://www.heartland.org/about-us/reply-to-critics/index.html

https://www.heartland.org/about-us/what-theyre-saying/index.html



It would seem that Heartland Institute ISN'T trustworthy nor would I think it's faculty, of which Peter Ferrara, the Author of the Piece OP has presented published in Forbes' Opinion section, is one such faculty member.


Bonus information, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Ferrara, do you not understand?


You ARE aware that Peter Ferrara was the author of that opinion piece, that he works at and contributes to the works of Heartland Institute, that he shares their ideologies, biases and lack of credibility, right? Tnat is what makes that piece trash.

Reply
Jun 28, 2019 20:42:55   #
nwtk2007 Loc: Texas
 
Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute#2012_documents_incident



http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/09/09/heartland-institute-nipcc-fail-the-credibility-test/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/15/leak-exposes-heartland-institute-climate

https://sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heartland_Institute

https://homelesscrisisinsfcompanies.tech.blog/2019/03/19/assessing-the-heartland-institute-and-its-credibility/

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/climatesciencewatch-com-heartland-institute-and-its-nipcc-report-fail-the-credibility-test-september-9-2013/



In the interest of fairness I was going to include the following two links but they fail to open.


https://www.heartland.org/about-us/reply-to-critics/index.html

https://www.heartland.org/about-us/what-theyre-saying/index.html



It would seem that Heartland Institute ISN'T trustworthy nor would I think it's faculty, of which Peter Ferrara, the Author of the Piece OP has presented published in Forbes' Opinion section, is one such faculty member.


Bonus information, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Ferrara, do you not understand?


You ARE aware that Peter Ferrara was the author of that opinion piece, that he works at and contributes to the works of Heartland Institute, that he shares their ideologies, biases and lack of credibility, right? Tnat is what makes that piece trash.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartlan... (show quote)


You seem pretty emotionally agitated about this. I'd say it's something you have no answer for; that it shoots down your religion, so to speak. Thus, you act like a lunatic, pontificating about how it is below you and you wouldn't waste your time on it. LOL! Without even reading it. LOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reply
Jun 28, 2019 20:44:53   #
nwtk2007 Loc: Texas
 
Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
Correct, I DON'T read trash, it is better burned than read. You are incorrect that anything it can post is above my ability to comprehend, if you can even read it, whether you can understand it or not, then it isn't likely beyond my comprehension. As for your bet... I doubt you are EVER right about ANYTHING, I had to change the parameters of your first sentence to even make your first statement correct if that tells you anything.


What is wrong with the content of the paper? It's reasoning? Its predictions of the future? Articulate your objections to it's content, rather than just bloviating and acting all superior, ignoring it's content.

Reply
Page 1 of 3 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.