[Ratmagiclady]

Shawn Lawrence Otto: UPDATE: Climate Denial Bombshell


Someone leaked documents about this groups' intentions and finances to push climate denial and falsify stuff, even in elementary schools:

Bet we don't hear so much about this as the baseless 'Climategate' flap, but these guys are behind a *lot* of the propaganda we hear.




They and their funders are also incidentally involved with that whole 'Green Dragon' thing telling the Religious Right that enviromentalism is some 'Satanic Pagan conspiracy' (involving a great deal of hate speech all around that, as well as general paranoia against well, nearly everyone the Right doesn't like. ) Some background there, and on the general landscape of the denial funders:

The ?Green Dragon? Slayers: How the Religious Right and the Corporate Right are Joining Forces to Fight Environmental Protection | People For the American Way

" In 2009, Beisner’s Cornwall Alliance cosponsored a climate change denial conference led by the Heartland Institute, a pro-corporate group funded by Exxon Mobil, the Koch Family Foundations, and the Scaife foundations. Other organizations funded by energy corporations that cosponsored the conference include the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, Americans for Tax Reform, and Americans for Prosperity. "

Edit: Here's another article I found with some more details: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shawn-lawrence-otto/heartland-institute-leak_b_1282906.html

---

Last edited by Ratmagiclady; 02-17-2012 at 09:29 AM.

[fisheye freak]

Sounds like a fake , but then those that believe in man-made global warming will believe anything. The amounts of money the Heartland Institute has at its disposal are miniscule in relation to the amounts the Green lobby has been putting in. And talk about the pot calling the kettle black- the blatant propaganda about AGW being taught in Australian schools purporting to be the truth is mind-boggling. We see blatant crap being pumped down kid's throats. One recent piece of complete fantasy claims sea levels will rise 90 metres (300 feet) by 2100. There isn't that much water on the planet ! This is total rubbish, yet it finds it's way in to the school curriuclum.
Well, what is it when blatant misinformation is shoved down kids throats purporting to be fact when clearly it is absolutely rubbish?
This is the sort of propaganda that Communists and Nazis sprout. Wake up world, there are evil forces working behind the scenes, notably in the UN. Do not be fooled by the bit of humanitarian work they do (the Taliban tried to gain respectability by running some provinces properly, but they were still the same crazy zealots that they always were) they still have their Fabian roots. Check your history. The Fabians were instrumental in founding the League of Nations, which morphed in to the United Nations. Do your homework Ratmagiclady- research the Fabians, Agenda 21 and New World Order before you even think about continuing with this thread.

[ihasa]

I always find it perplexing when people say the science behind man-made climate change is 'tainted by vested interests', but characterise climate change denialism as some sort pure and unsullied voice of reason. So obviously a complete reversal of what is going on.

One recent piece of complete fantasy claims sea levels will rise 90 metres (300 feet) by 2100. There isn't that much water on the planet ! This is total rubbish, yet it finds it's way in to the school curriuclum.

Who is saying there will be a 90m sea level rise? No one, as far as I can tell. Please provide the source for this information that schools are teaching this. My guess is that someone has misunderstood what is being taught and then splurged their 'misunderstanding' all over the internet to a willing audience of people with no inclination to check whether the source was valid. E.g. do they mean mm rather than metres? Or perhaps they were referring to the *fact* that if all the glaciers on the planet melted entirely, sea levels would rise by 80m. No-one would say that would ever be likely to happen, and certainly not by 2100, but I can imagine climate-change deniers taking that snippet out of context to make science education look ridiculous.

[dadipentak]

Wake up world, there are evil forces working behind the scenes, notably in the UN.

wow. ok...

[ihasa]

No one has ever convincingly explained what these 'evil forces' have to gain by inventing climate change, or how they got 90% of the scientific community on board.

[jogiba]

Sounds like a fake , but then those that believe in man-made global warming will believe anything. The amounts of money the Heartland Institute has at its disposal are miniscule in relation to the amounts the Green lobby has been putting in. And talk about the pot calling the kettle black- the blatant propaganda about AGW being taught in Australian schools purporting to be the truth is mind-boggling. We see blatant crap being pumped down kid's throats. One recent piece of complete fantasy claims sea levels will rise 90 metres (300 feet) by 2100. There isn't that much water on the planet ! This is total rubbish, yet it finds it's way in to the school curriuclum.
Well, what is it when blatant misinformation is shoved down kids throats purporting to be fact when clearly it is absolutely rubbish?
This is the sort of propaganda that Communists and Nazis sprout. Wake up world, there are evil forces working behind the scenes, notably in the UN. Do not be fooled by the bit of humanitarian work they do (the Taliban tried to gain respectability by running some provinces properly, but they were still the same crazy zealots that they always were) they still have their Fabian roots. Check your history. The Fabians were instrumental in founding the League of Nations, which morphed in to the United Nations. Do your homework Ratmagiclady- research the Fabians, Agenda 21 and New World Order before you even think about continuing with this thread.

Watch out for the black helicopters.

[Ratmagiclady]

No one has ever convincingly explained what these 'evil forces' have to gain by inventing climate change, or how they got 90% of the scientific community on board.

That's the big one right there: it seems that six million a year or more is plenty to promote a lot of paranoid conspiracy theories and fear and false claims about science. Not that I'm expecting Fisheye to hear a word of that, either. But actually the 'Heartland Institute' is just one arm of the Koch Bros/Big Oil/Religious Right machine: vast amounts of money go into denialism and disinformation, and it's a lot easier and cheaper to lie than it is to teach proper science.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/405923_1015056050878127...87859297_n.jpg

---

Last edited by Ratmagiclady; 02-17-2012 at 12:11 PM.

[fisheye freak]

Obviously, some of you did not do your homework. The stakes for perpetuating the AGW myth are very high- the realization of the Fabian Utopia. Go back and do your bit of research to find out just what it is and why I refer to it as an evil force. The famous "4000 scientists " who agree with AGW contains but a handful of actual scientists, many of whom have been implicated in the "Climategate" affair. The majority of the signatures are NOT those of science based academics. Do note, funding goes to those who produce the results expected of them. If they do not draw the conclusions expected, they do not get funding, hence unemployment. Media have also been intimidated in to not reporting anti AGW literature and news.
"To silence criticism is to silence freedom" Sidney Hook.
Go back and do your homework. Relying on faith on AGW is akin to blind religious faith, which has been manipulated time and again for evil purposes. Just look at religious bodies(other than your own) and their track records- evil in your eyes, yet they look upon you as evil in their eyes(they also swear blind that their's is the only true way and everyone else will burn in hell .)

[Ratmagiclady]

Obviously, some of you did not do your homework. The stakes for perpetuating the AGW myth are very high- the realization of the Fabian Utopia.

Whatever shadowy Utopia someone's so afraid of, it seems there's scant danger of that even happening, never mind it either existing or having any *reason* to exist apart from denialists and theocrats and the Big Oil money needing to create an 'enemy' to try and justify their *own* 'war' against the world and science and the common people.

And it does nothing to explain away what denialists actually *do* in the face of what's *actually observed to be happening, or mean that a head-in-the-sand attitude about climate change means that being dependent on fossil fuels and polluting the Earth and avoiding alternative sources of energy and opposing conservation or green jobs or even people's access to education, contraceptives, etc etc.. is *good* in any way. It doesn't make the status quo any more sustainable, never mind make it fine to increase the rate at which all these thigns get worse.

You're putting a *lot* on this elaborate conspiracy which doesn't show any signs of existing but which you accuse most of the rest of the world of being in on. Which you seem to only want to claim so you can make *other* irrational claims about anyone who doesn't want to hand Big Oil and religious fundamentalists and Big Finance *more* while they already *have* way too much.

Go back and do your bit of research to find out just what it is and why I refer to it as an evil force.

Conspiracy thinking doesn't constitute research. You're just making associations with fears you want to cultivate.

The famous "4000 scientists " who agree with AGW contains but a handful of actual scientists, many of whom have been implicated in the "Climategate" affair. The majority of the signatures are NOT those of science based academics.

Actually, the reverse of the state of affairs is the actual truth: whatever 'famous 4000' you're talking about (there are a lot more just *climate* scientists than that,) it was the 'Climategate' affair that the corporate media jumped all over, even though all the accusations by the denial machine proved to be untrue and distorted, and again, as we went into over and over at the time, the alleged 'fraud' actually had no bearing on what the evidence is, nor was the one thing they tried to claim was a smoking gun even aan unfaithful representation of the data, as the denialist slanderers claimed: in fact several other independent studies of *that* data produced the same.

It's the denialists who are always claiming degrees in fields they don't have, whether it's on this part of the same conservative agendas, or on evolutionary science or when they want to attack LGBT rights or any of these things that come from the same big money people doing all of what they do quite obviously, not even really being shy about it, as long as they can make the same denialist line *seem* to be coming from a lot of different places.

(In part by simply changing the names of their propaganda organs when they're discredited, only to reintroduce the same discredited claims *elsewhere.* )

You don't need a grand conspiracy to explain what's going on when obvious self-interest will do.

Do note, funding goes to those who produce the results expected of them. If they do not draw the conclusions expected, they do not get funding, hence unemployment. Media have also been intimidated in to not reporting anti AGW literature and news.
"To silence criticism is to silence freedom" Sidney Hook.

It's not 'silencing' people to not put conspiracy theories and falsified data on the same level as all of science. Which in fact the corporate media have bent over backwards to *do.* You're also reversing the actual facts about where the moneyed interests are: and who gets fired or silenced. denialist mouthpieces get paid a *lot* more than hardworking scientists who actually *have expertise in the related fields. *

In America, it was the Bush administration who put a denialist in charge of NASA and cut the funding for the instruments to study our atmosphere, the Republicans are even trying or have tried to do away with NOAA and the *National Weather Service.* ....That doesn't sound like someone wanting an honest look at the data: they don't even want the data to be *gathered.*


And the Bush administration was actually *caught* at actually telling scientists to omit things and edit results that show things that disprove denialist claims and say that climate change is *underway.* Observably.


Denialism doesn't actually *produce* any science, you know, never mind *propose* any solutions: it just attacks the truth and hopes that by casting doubt on our ability *to* know things, that it can create *inaction* so that the big money can continue profiting and a lot of people can go on thinking that they don't have to make any changes.

You're flipping the narrative, here: the same Roveian tactics that the Right uses on just about every issue these days.

And unlike your shadowy conspiracies, Rove *told people all about this in public and you can see the GOP especially, actually doing it. * Then telling you to look for some 'evil conspiracies' or 'evil outsiders' or 'evil unbelievers' to blame when what they've done *actually does not work except for those same unltra-rich people pushing all that fear, hatred, willful ignorance, and denialism.

Go back and do your homework. Relying on faith on AGW is akin to blind religious faith, which has been manipulated time and again for evil purposes. Just look at religious bodies(other than your own) and their track records- evil in your eyes, yet they look upon you as evil in their eyes(they also swear blind that their's is the only true way and everyone else will burn in hell .)

Claiming over and over again that no one but you, including just about all scientists who've actually *studied* and *observed* this, has 'done our homework' does not aid your case here. Your claims that most of the rest of the world is relying on 'blind faith' (when a key point of denialist conspiracy theories is to claim that everyone and everything in the world exists to be a threat *to* your blind faith (that's where the theocrats come in)


That's why denialism *is* a hallmark of the theocratic authorities... they're trying to *make* this about 'a war of religions' when the point and process of science is *not* about competing religious dogmas, even if certain religions want to claim science is no more than some 'false religion.'

Only authoritarian religions have any *interest* in treating science as religion. (Even if they're trying to 'explain away' overwhelming evidence.) Projecting that the other way around doesn't make it so.

Your claims simply don't make what you say, so.... What *are* these denialists promoting as a 'solution?'

You can see that right out in the open, too: they don't want progress to be made on dealing with real and present problems: as the effects of their stonewalling and delay and ignorance become more and more obvious: you want people to start blaming 'some evil people' out there. Literal witch-hunts against non-Christians, claims that 'spiritual warfare' and government power for religion is needed: take freedom from women, persecute gays, blame Jews, blame third world peoples... call aboriginals 'devil-worshippers,' ...attack intellectuals, put corporations in control of once-free nations... Pursue expensive wars and then blame the same people for all that comes of *that* ... None of which of course does a thing but accrue more money and power to the moneyed elites and cooperative theocratic authorities. ...and when that only makes things worse, they scapegoat anyone they don't like or any opposition, and do more and worse of the same. It always falls down, of course, but that doesn't undo the havoc, damage, and waste it creates.

Yeah, if that sounds like fascism, that's cause that's how that sort of thing comes about. Conspiracies of small 'evil groups' just arent' that powerful, but if the system and circumstance allows, you *will* find people who have money and power and want more willing to step into those roles. And that's what we have in the likes of the Koch Brothers and the rest of Big Oil. And conservative politicians that prefer to pander to the extreme Right even if it means going directly against the interests and wishes of their own constituencies.

You can claim you found a way to read a few words to claim "The UN wants to and somehow could commit mass-murder," all you want. That doesn't change the reality.

[johnmflores]

Sounds like a fake , but then those that believe in man-made global warming will believe anything. The amounts of money the Heartland Institute has at its disposal are miniscule in relation to the amounts the Green lobby has been putting in. And talk about the pot calling the kettle black- the blatant propaganda about AGW being taught in Australian schools purporting to be the truth is mind-boggling. We see blatant crap being pumped down kid's throats. One recent piece of complete fantasy claims sea levels will rise 90 metres (300 feet) by 2100. There isn't that much water on the planet ! This is total rubbish, yet it finds it's way in to the school curriuclum.
Well, what is it when blatant misinformation is shoved down kids throats purporting to be fact when clearly it is absolutely rubbish?
This is the sort of propaganda that Communists and Nazis sprout. Wake up world, there are evil forces working behind the scenes, notably in the UN. Do not be fooled by the bit of humanitarian work they do (the Taliban tried to gain respectability by running some provinces properly, but they were still the same crazy zealots that they always were) they still have their Fabian roots. Check your history. The Fabians were instrumental in founding the League of Nations, which morphed in to the United Nations. Do your homework Ratmagiclady- research the Fabians, Agenda 21 and New World Order before you even think about continuing with this thread.

Can I ask you a question - what are the motives behind the Heartland Institute in relation to global warming?

[ihasa]

... And please Fisheye Freak, can you provide a source for the '90m sea levels rise' claim, as I requested in my first post?

[redrockcoulee]

Anyone who puts in a funding proposal with expected results should not be shocked to find their proposal denied. No real funding source funds for pre determined results. Especially at the university level. You put in a proposal for research and must show how it contributes to its field, what you are studying, some info on related studies and why they should believe that you can do the study (published papers, advisor's recommendation etc). Much if not most of the studies that are used have a primary purpose other than climate change, in other words an area or topic is studied for its own merits and then published and some other scientists use the published results or the raw data to see how it fits with a broader topic or with the climate models if it is that type of data.

It is quite common for people like the climate deniers, and I use that word as they are not really using any original research and are twisting and cherry picking real research to make their point, to use false claims such as researchers have to tow the party line or they will not get funding or published or Al Gore is forcing them to do so. Many of these researchers are working for governments in which the ruling party changes and yet the scientists science does not or in the case of some working under the Bush administration their works conflicts with the views of the government. I suspect that most of the scientists do not even know about the Fabian conspiracy or were invited to join it and I would not be surprises if as many of them are as right of centre as there are left of centre in their politics. Just more smear from a group of people who have been proved to be dishonest. The Climategate and Micheal Mann accusations have been proven false. The science behind climate change is still the best explanation for the climate, the models have proven themselves by running backwards, that is predicting the past although I guess predicting is not the correct word, the big lies about 1998 being the warmest on record and the globe as been cooling since then does not stand up against the actual data etc etc.

The 90 meter claim could be true if you include expansion of the sea water due to heating, the melting of glacial ice plus what is not normally considered by the deniers the melt of permafrost. What most likely happened is some one was asked what would be the total amount of sea level rise if everything melted and they said 90 meters not that they said it would happen and of course out of content is par for the course with the deniers. As far as scientists and environmental groups having more money to spend on this issue than the right wing think tanks, the oil and gas and big coal industries is laughable.

But seeing as I do not believe in the Fabian conspiracy apparently I do not have the right to contribute to this thread (unless I can until I am told otherwise).

Think I should start a tin hat factory. Disclosure; when I got my Physical Geography degree I became acquainted with some students who have gone on to careers in academia and geology and support climate change, in fact one of them is a leader in dendrochronology. Not one of them I would classify as stupid or political and I found them more trustworthy and knowledgeable than any of the deniers work I have read. A Dr Ball they are not , thankfully.

[fisheye freak]

It was actually 100 metre sea level rise possibility Robyn Williams predicted which was defended at interview. Al Gore comes up with 6 metre sea level rise( note he is not a scientist and has waterfront property and stands to make obscene amounts of money with carbon trading), the IPCC says 59cm ( 2 feet). As you are all too lazy to check out the Fabian connection for yourself, I will lay out a quick time line. In 1884 the Fabian society was set up with members such as George Bernard Shaw, the Webbs, Orson Wells to continue the work of Karl Marx. A rather wealthy benefactor provided ongoing funding on on his suicide, a substantial amount of money was available for the Fabians, who set up the London School of Economics among other projects. Cecil Rhodes(founder of the Rhodes Scholarship) was also a Fabian. Just some of the ideals of the Fabians- one world government with unelected leaders, no private ownership of property(very Communistic)) those who refuse to work, the state reserves the right to execute(humanely, of course), The western capitalist system was/is despised by the Fabians. The Fabians were instrumental in establishing the League of Nations( not a new idea- such thought harks back to at least the 1850's). The League of nations, in the light of their failure to do anything in WW 2 morphed in to the United Nations. If you have the time, go through the UN treaties since 1960 in particular- the ramifications are substantial to say the least. Check out "Agenda 21" for yourself in the UN website- easy to find. Research the implications of the 1975 Lima Declaration. Unless you are a sheep who does not mind being led by the nose( sheep eventually find themselves being served up with rosemary and mint jelly) you should check it out for yourself. You warmist types out there jump up and down with the donation of a few million dollars from industrial interest groups, but what about the BILLIONS from green groups. Our Australian government(which was elected on blatant LIES) has given millions of taxpayers dollars to the climate action groups within the UN. You are guilty of gross one-sidedness by not whinging about the vastly greater influence of green groups.

[Wheatfield]

I always find it perplexing when people say the science behind man-made climate change is 'tainted by vested interests', but characterise climate change denialism as some sort pure and unsullied voice of reason. So obviously a complete reversal of what is going on.

David Suzuki says global warming is happening = a lie.
The oil industry says global warming isn't happening = the truth.
You didn't know this?

[Ratmagiclady]

But seeing as I do not believe in the Fabian conspiracy apparently I do not have the right to contribute to this thread (unless I can until I am told otherwise).

.

If you live on the fringe, conspiracies are invariably disappointing, most especially "Occult" ones. As a modern urban shaman it's always been one of the *bight* spots to be dealing with ostensible vast occult conspiracies that at least put a little bit of effort into at least learning their runes and stuff, before it invariably turns out to be some social maladroit just trying to get laid.

Same as the American version, come right down to it, but if I've got to deal with it, speaking of 'doing homework,' so I always thought that if anyone wants to have an 'occult conspiracy' to feel important with, at least put a little effort into *keeping me entertained.* All I *really* have to do is protect the innocent and unf***any bad patterns, but while everyone's freaking out about 'occult conspiracies,' to justify political idiocy, who has to actually deal with them?

Someone like me.

And it really doesn't matter if it's 'Skull and Bones' or longer-standing sophisticated ways to boink the domestic help... Who cares if you're screaming about 'Fabian Conspiracies' or the flavor of the week of sinister Rosicrucians.That sh** *always* comes down to terribly banal and shortsighted stuff about *money* and more than that *sex.*

Doesn't even get *interesting* till it's been going on for generations in Europe, and even *that* has no bearing on what it's ostensibly supposed to, never mind some 'secret control of the world that's shockingly-ineffective at preventing ever-increasing quantities of greenhouse gas being emitted overtly and proudly by people who tell you to blame *minorities* and 'Occult conspiracies.'

Simple fact is, when right-wingers want someone to 'magically' take the blame for what they insist on doing, overtly, they *blame* me.

if anyone *actually* runs afoul of ill-workers, they *call* me.


For Fisheye Freak:

It disappoints me that in this world of wonders, the BS smells the same, every time.

It's not anywhere year what you claim it should be to explain why what you say has never been anywhere near right or righteous.


All your conspiracy theory says is that you choose ignorance: that you choose consigning this whole world to your Devil, rather than oncesaying three words: Four:
"I Don't Know. Yet."

There are fewer 'occult conspiracies' in this world than you might like to think, FF. But one feature they have in common....Is thinking they're as big as the hype someone like *you* spreads. And playing on *vanity.* The exact sort you indulge here.

While looking for 'evils' to expunge... Like they told you to.


I know you don't want to hear you've been rooked, ...but you're not supposed to, are you? Or else you wouldn't have to posture at me like I 'didn't do my homework?'




And, more to the point, 'Fisheyefreak:' The more you try to stack the works..... Invariably....


The plot thins.


Update.