Pages

85 comments

Jump to bottom
1 Daniel Ballard  Thu, Sep 15, 2011 5:21:24pm

Hah. Excellent run down.

2 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Thu, Sep 15, 2011 5:25:16pm

re: #1 Rightwingconspirator

Hah. Excellent run down.

Proof was in the pudding. If a major rabbi were to come out and say suddenly that he was withdrawing from a yeshiva because they kept insisting that pig was not kosher, there are really only three possibilities.

They are, G-d forbid:

1. His family were held hostage and he was being black-mailed.
2. He went crazy.
3. He sold out.

I don't know which is worse in that hypothetical case. But in the case of Ivar, it is apparent that he sold out, and it is just as terrible.

3 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Thu, Sep 15, 2011 5:41:03pm

Sorry, I don't see any proof here that he took money from either the Cato Institute or the Heartland Institute. A collaborator, sure. Paid? Maybe. But I don't see any proof provided by Ludwig.

Btw, his climate change denial seems to go back at least to 2008, according to Wikipedia.

4 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Thu, Sep 15, 2011 6:09:18pm

re: #3 000G

Sure, a well known scientist with no history of climate research of his own comes out with a list of wingnut talking points that are easily scientifically refuted just because of the goodness of his heart - but does not bother to publish a single paper on the topic that can be peer reviewed. If he truly had some data to take down climate science, he would publish it somewhere. But he doesn't. Of course he is getting paid.

5 Interesting Times  Thu, Sep 15, 2011 6:12:26pm

It's extremely naive to think he wasn't paid, given facts such as this:

Real Climate blog on Heartland conference
"What if you held a conference and no (real) scientists came?". Real Climate blog on the invite to the Heartland 08 conference, confirming what speakers were paid ($1000 each) and that their travel and accommodation would also be paid by Heartland.

From the Real Climate link:

The Heartland Institute must have realized that this is not what drives the kind of people they are trying to attract as speakers: they are offering $1,000 to those willing to give a talk. This reminds us of the American Enterprise Institute last year offering a honorarium of $10,000 for articles by scientists disputing anthropogenic climate change. So this appear to be the current market prices for calling global warming into question: $1000 for a lecture and $10,000 for a written paper.

6 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Thu, Sep 15, 2011 6:14:03pm

re: #5 publicityStunted

It's extremely naive to think he wasn't paid, given facts such as this:

From the Real Climate link:

Excellent post! You are on fire tonight.

7 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Thu, Sep 15, 2011 6:20:00pm

re: #5 publicityStunted

Added that to my post with a hat tip to you.

8 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Thu, Sep 15, 2011 6:41:40pm

re: #4 LudwigVanQuixote

Sure, a well known scientist with no history of climate research of his own comes out with a list of wingnut talking points that are easily scientifically refuted just because of the goodness of his heart - but does not bother to publish a single paper on the topic that can be peer reviewed. If he truly had some data to take down climate science, he would publish it somewhere. But he doesn't. Of course he is getting paid.

That bolded part is conjecture, Ludwig. You didn't prove it.

9 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Thu, Sep 15, 2011 6:44:18pm

re: #5 publicityStunted

It's extremely naive to think he wasn't paid, given facts such as this:

From the Real Climate link:

It may be naive to think he was not paid (I don't, I am agnostic concerning that issue), but it is a non sequitur to think that he was paid, given those facts. It simply does not follow. It's not proof, it's only speculation.

10 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Thu, Sep 15, 2011 6:53:07pm

re: #8 000G

That bolded part is conjecture, Ludwig. You didn't prove it.

OK... then what exactly is is motivation then?

If he is doing this out of his pure love of science that he thinks has gone wrong, why does he not do what every other scientist (who is not a paid shill) does in that position and publish his objections in a meaningful and peer reviewed way?

Why would someone who is not a climate scientist and has no connection to the field professionally, make such obvious errors in his arguments and overlook such basic science in his statements> Of course he knows the basic science. Of course he could look up the hard core climate science. Why damage an otherwise stirling reputation saying such nonsense?

Why would he be the one exception to the other people at Heartland and Cato who do get paid to say the same stuff?

What do you think the answer is if he is not getting paid?

11 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Thu, Sep 15, 2011 7:05:15pm

re: #10 LudwigVanQuixote

What do you think the answer is if he is not getting paid?

I dunno, maybe he just loves being a pro bono asshole. I never pretended to know or be able to provide a provable answer, you did. FWIW, the senility answer you provided is as proven as the "taken" answer.

12 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Thu, Sep 15, 2011 7:25:35pm

re: #11 000G

Yes and maybe we are all the dream of the cosmic blue turtle. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

He sold out.

13 jlakely  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 12:39:28pm

I appreciate OOOG pointing out that LudwigVanQuixote has proved nothing, but has engaged in pure conjecture. But, let me correct the record anyway.

1. Ludwig writes: "Of course he is getting paid. Of course Heartland pays its "experts." That is 100 percent false in the case of Ivar Giaever. We do not pay Ivar Giaever. He is among more than 200 unpaid "policy advisors" for Heartland.

2. As for scientists being paid a modest $1,000 honoraria for speaking at Heartland's climate conferences -- that is common practice all over the think tank world, on all sides. It is idiotic to suggest it's a scandal to pay the travel costs of people you're asking to travel thousands of miles to share their research. Are you not curious if speakers are paid at climate alarmist conferences? Check into it. I'll bet you'll find that ... GASP! ... those folks are paid for their time, travel and work preparing for a conference.

3. The Heartland Institute has NEVER denied that smoking cigarettes causes cancer. And the link Ludwig used doesn't claim that, either. Heartland has pointed out that the links between second-hand smoke and cancer are thin to non-existent. There is quite a bit of difference between the two.

4. There is plenty of scientific literature that undercuts the theory of man-caused global warming. See our new 400-page report.

LUDWIG: I think you should admit that your bold claims to "prove" Giaever is "on the take" from Heartland or anyone else is a complete failure. Actually, you should apologize to Giaever. The Heartland Institute will accept a simple correction.

You're entitled to your opinions. You're not entitled to make up facts and pretend to prove something you have not.

Jim Lakely
Director of Communications
The Heartland Institute
Chicago, IL

14 Varek Raith  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 12:48:57pm

re: #13 jlakely

Your whole institute is guilty of making up facts. You guys lied about the effects of smoking in the 90s. And now you're lying about AGW. Fuck off.

15 Obdicut  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 12:51:33pm

re: #13 jlakely

What Nature, the pre-eminent scientific journal, had to say about your report:

"Despite criticizing climate scientists for being overconfident about their data, models and theories, the Heartland Institute proclaims a conspicuous confidence in single studies and grand interpretations....makes many bold assertions that are often questionable or misleading.... Many climate sceptics seem to review scientific data and studies not as scientists but as attorneys, magnifying doubts and treating incomplete explanations as falsehoods rather than signs of progress towards the truth. ... The Heartland Institute and its ilk are not trying to build a theory of anything. They have set the bar much lower, and are happy muddying the waters.""

16 jaunte  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 12:56:46pm

"New Report on Global Warming" funding sources, from SourceWatch:

The report was produced by The Heartland Institute, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, and Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), three national nonprofit organizations based in Chicago, Illinois; Tempe, Arizona; and Arlington, Virginia; respectively.

17 Interesting Times  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 1:00:35pm

re: #13 jlakely

You're entitled to your opinions. You're not entitled to make up facts and pretend to prove something you have not.

Should you ever decide to leave heartland, the IMAX corporation would pay handsomely for your expertise in projection.

18 Obdicut  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 1:00:49pm

The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has Exxon funding. SEPP has gotten funding from Exxon, Shell, Unocal and ARCO. and Reverend Sun Myung Moon.

So, big oil and a complete religious whackjob. Which is why their report was torn to shreds by actual climatologists.

19 wrenchwench  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 1:05:34pm

re: #13 jlakely

Does it make it better that someone would "sell out" for free, or really cheap?

20 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 1:12:13pm
Yes and maybe we are all the dream of the cosmic blue turtle. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

He sold out.

I agree that the "taken" hypothesis is plausible and arguably likely true. It is, however, also not proof in and of itself. Furthermore, there's lots of other possible explanations one can come up with, including the "enjoys being an ass" or maybe "likes to travel and network with conservatives", that are not much more unlikely – certainly not as unlikely as your "dream of the cosmic blue turtle" false analogy suggests.

Aside from that, and JFTR, I did not and do not intend to defend these guys (either Giaevers or Heartland or Cato or Exxon or what have you). Don't feel like they deserve anything like that from me. I seriously was just interested in poking at LVQ's argument – and as far as I am concerned, poking at flawed arguments is what enabled people to see through the Heartland Institute and associates to begin with. publicityStunted's #17 goes to the heart of the matter by bringing to light the hypocrisy displayed here in that regard.

21 Obdicut  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 1:15:03pm

re: #20 000G

The point is that the reason he did it is obviously not connected to actual honest scientific inquiry, as Ludwig made clear. The actual motive is pretty irrelevant.

22 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 1:22:05pm

re: #21 Obdicut

The point is that the reason he did it is obviously not connected to actual honest scientific inquiry, as Ludwig made clear.

Then that should be enough, no?

The actual motive is pretty irrelevant.

Well, Ludwig initially argued for the existence of one particular motive here and I picked up that argument. In the context of this LGF discussion, I guess it is relevant, then.

23 Charles Johnson  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 1:24:40pm

A little context here on the Heartland Institute's long history of shilling for the tobacco industry: The Heartland Institute and the Academy of Tobacco Studies.

24 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 1:34:22pm

re: #23 Charles

A little context here on the Heartland Institute's long history of shilling for the tobacco industry: The Heartland Institute and the Academy of Tobacco Studies.

I am glad you saw this too Charles. I just saw it only a few minutes ago and Shabbos is rolling in shortly. Of course I will respond, but I intend to do so carefully and with a lot of extra research to make certain he is responded to thoroughly.

25 jlakely  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 1:42:38pm

Nice to see the proprietor of the mighty LGF weigh in.

I did not come here to convince any of you that reams of scientific evidence exists that puts into question the theory that human activity is chiefly, or even significantly, responsible for changes in the earth's climate. I realize that's a fool's errand in a group that believes in man-caused global warming as strongly as Michele Bachmann believes in the saving grace of Jesus. But, the link I have above contains the latest in our collection of evidence and study by scientists around the world. Read it, or don't read it.

However ...

1. LVQ said he would "prove" Giaever is on the take -- from Heartland. I can tell you that is simply not the case. And even if you don't want to believe me (I'm used to critics of Heartland simply refusing to take my word for anything), LVQ did not come within 1,000 miles of proving it. Again ... because it's not true.

2. You can throw around all the evidence you'd like about Heartland's work on tobacco issues. And none of them say Heartland denies smoking cigarettes causes cancer. We maintain that the scientific link between second-hand smoke and cancer is weak to non-existent. Why can't you critics of Heartland at least acknowledge that there is a big difference?

The honorable thing for LVQ would be to correct himself. I'm not holding my breath.

Jim Lakely
The Heartland Institute

26 Lidane  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 1:46:59pm

re: #13 jlakely

You're entitled to your opinions. You're not entitled to make up facts and pretend to prove something you have not.

The fact that you're a paid Heartland shill makes this sentence from you hilarious.

How do you get through the day with that much cognitive dissonance?

27 jlakely  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 1:47:58pm

re: #24 LudwigVanQuixote

Glad to hear it, LVQ. (And I'm tickled that my "like" meter keeps plummeting for merely asking that criticisms of The Heartland Institute be based in fact rather than conjecture, links that don't actually say what the words in the post promise, etc.)

Jim

28 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 1:54:13pm

re: #13 jlakely

tl:dr

29 jaunte  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 1:55:13pm

"Astroturfing began just like that, when smoking companies set up dummy research institutes and foundations to help people "learn the truth." But what they were really doing was trying to confuse people, and delay the implementation of tough smoking laws. And it worked. Their money bought a 10 or 12 year reprieve from legislation, giving them more than enough time to hook another generation. They are laughing all the way to the bank."
[Link: one-blue-marble.com...]

30 Charles Johnson  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 1:59:05pm

re: #25 jlakely

Nice to see the proprietor of the mighty LGF weigh in.

Thanks for the compliment; but as mighty as LGF undoubtedly is, it pales in comparison to the might of the industry front group you represent.

For one thing, we make do with quite a bit less money from industries that cause harm to the public.

Heartland Institute - SourceWatch:

Foundation funders

Media Transparency lists Heartland as having received grants from a range of foundations between 1986 and 2009. Of these foundations, by far the largest donor has been the foundation of Chicago industrialist Barre Seid[29], maker of Tripp Lite surge protectors.

Barbara and Barre Seid Foundation $1,037,977
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation $648,000
Exxon Mobil $531,500
Walton Family Foundation $400,000
Sarah Scaife Foundation $325,000
Charlotte and Walter Kohler Charitable Trust $190,500
Jaquelin Hume Foundation $166,000
Rodney Fund $135,000
JM Foundation $82,000
Castle Rock Foundation $70,000
Roe Foundation $41,500
John M. Olin Foundation $40,000
Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation $40,000
Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation $37,578
Armstrong Foundation $30,000
Hickory Foundation $13,000
Carthage Foundation $10,000

Exxon funding

Greenpeace's ExxonSecrets website lists Heartland as having received $676,500 (unadjusted for inflation) from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2006.[30] (As mentioned above, Heartland insist that Exxon has not contributed to the group since 2006.)[31]

Exxon contributions include:

$30,000 in 1998;
$115,000 in 2000;
$90,000 in 2001;
$15,000 in 2002;
$85,000 for General Operating Support and $7,500 for their 19th Anniversary Benefit Dinner in 2003;
$85,000 for General Operating Support and $15,000 for Climate Change Efforts in 2004; and
$119,000 in 2005; and
$115,000 in 2006.

Secrecy on funding sources

While Heartland once disclosed its major supporters, it now refuses to publicly disclose who its corporate and foundation funders are. In response to an article criticizing the think tank for its secrecy, the group's President, Joseph Bast, wrote in February 2005:

"For many years, we provided a complete list of Heartland's corporate and foundation donors on this Web site and challenged other think tanks and advocacy groups to do the same. To our knowledge, not a single group followed our lead. However, critics who couldn’t or wouldn’t engage in fair debate over our ideas found the donor list a convenient place to find the names of unpopular companies or foundations, which they used in ad hominem attacks against us. Even reporters from time to time seemed to think reporting the identities of one or two donors--out of a list of hundreds--was a fair way of representing our funding or our motivation in taking the positions expressed in our publications. After much deliberation and with some regret, we now keep confidential the identities of all our donors."[32]

It has also claimed that "by not disclosing our donors, we keep the focus on the issue."

31 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 2:00:52pm

re: #27 jlakely

And I'm tickled that my "like" meter keeps plummeting

I am pretty sure the downdings that must seem to you like some bizarroworld version of the Breitbart Universe you are used to get lovebombed in are not due to you "merely asking etc." but the dishonest and/or ignorant way in which you build up your "evidence".

32 wrenchwench  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 2:01:15pm

re: #29 jaunte

33 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 2:10:47pm

re: #25 jlakely

It is interesting to note how you have changed your stances and foci even in these comments.

I will say this for now:

It is evident - absolutely evident that Dr.Giaever is working with a fossil fuel industry funded group (yours) known for producing "science" that is strongly repudiated by the majority of the legitimate scientific community. It is repudiated by data. It is repudiated by mountains of evidence from multiple lines of pursuit. It is evident that the "science" your institute produces in regards to AGW serves the financial and political interests of the groups that fund you.

It is questionable form for a scientist to associate with such groups because it calls his scientific rigor deeply into question. Your group is hardly unbiased or in pursuit of scientific truth as its primary goal.

A troubling question is formed by this. Why would an otherwise excellent scientist, with a sterling reputation, come out and call the work of his colleagues a religion and spout the talking points of an institute like yours with no particular research of his own to back up his assertions?

You are correct. I have not, in a legal sense proven that money has changed hands in this matter. It is possible that Dr. Giaever merely enjoys shooting his mouth off about the research of thousands of his colleagues without bothering to do the basic research of the literature that would be expected of a graduate student. He surely knows what a Milankovitch cycle is. He surely knows what a greenhouse effect is. He surely can not believe that all that carbon is doing nothing or that we are not putting it up there. It is possible that he has some earth shaking data of his own to publish and for some unknown reason is waiting to publish. However, it is unlikely that a man of his stature would be so careless.

His comment that the earth's temperature is "remarkably stable" because of only a 0.7 C change over 150 years is an astonishingly careless remark. It's more like 100 years for one thing but more importantly, he knows, he has to know, that vastly smaller changes in temperature can radically alter certain systems, while other systems remain stable over vastly larger temperature changes. His statement is meaningless. 0.7 C above zero is water, below by 0.7 C is ice.

Every scientist knows that talking about the effects of temperature change without talking about the specific system involved is simply ridiculous. He knows this. A graduate student would not be permitted to make such an error.

It turns out that this seemingly small change in temperature is already producing changed weather patterns, droughts and floods around the world.

So why is he being so purposefully careless after a career marked by stellar science? Why is he saying this stuff for you when your entire purpose in this arena is to be opposed to climate science?

But you are correct. I have not proved anything in the strictest sense of the word. Perhaps he is just cranky! That is possible. I would be very curious though to hear another reasonable explanation.

34 jlakely  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 2:12:36pm

re: #31 000G

Sheesh. Try to be a nice guy ...

Say whatever you want about Heartland, just make sure it's fact-based. Charles pointed out our funding break-down from Sourcewatch. You don't see me flaming him, do you? (Though the "who funds you" game is tiresome. Break down Exxon's support of Heartland and it's peanuts for a think tank with a $6 million budget -- and nothing compared to what the warming side gets.)

And, as Charles helpfully points out, Exxon stopped sending money our way in 2006. Our first climate conference was 2008. Isn't that interesting? Doesn't it suggest that Heartland takes its positions on principle? And, perhaps, Giaever did, as well?

No. I suppose it's just easier to assign on whatever motivation you can imagine (but cannot know), say you'll prove it, do nothing of the kind, and then jump on me when I point out the obvious.

I'm having some fun here. Might not stick around much longer, however. Got more important things to do ... which many of you will imagine is evil. So be it. I just think you guys are wrong.

35 jlakely  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 2:14:24pm

re: #33 LudwigVanQuixote

Apology accepted.

36 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 2:16:16pm

re: #34 jlakely

How about this comment you chose to ignore? Factual enough for you?

37 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 2:17:13pm

re: #36 000G

Source, btw: [Link: www.nature.com...]

38 Charles Johnson  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 2:18:14pm

re: #34 jlakely

Exxon stopped sending money our way in 2006. Our first climate conference was 2008. Isn't that interesting? Doesn't it suggest that Heartland takes its positions on principle?

No.

39 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 2:18:56pm

re: #36 000G

re: #37 000G

Yes absolutely. When I have the time to I shall be citing the many, many scientific debunkings of that propaganda as part of a much more detailed response.

40 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 2:19:21pm

re: #35 jlakely

Apology accepted.

That was not an apology.

41 Lidane  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 2:20:17pm

re: #34 jlakely

Doesn't it suggest that Heartland takes its positions on principle?

LOL no. Blatant industry astroturf groups like Heartland don't have principles. They just have propaganda.

42 Obdicut  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 2:25:45pm

re: #25 jlakely

I realize that's a fool's errand in a group that believes in man-caused global warming as strongly as Michele Bachmann believes in the saving grace of Jesus.

It's a fools errand in a community where people understand basic science.

CO2 traps heat in our atmosphere.

Adding CO2 to the atmosphere can be expected to trap more heat.

We've added a ton of CO2 to the atmosphere.

As expected, it's trapping more heat, which can be shown by the increase in global temperature, which is reproduced in every measure and method of study, by every independent group, by every international group and nation that tracks it.

What you are is a conspiracy theorist, a shill of a conspiracy theorist but still one. Your argument is that 97% of all climate scientists are either wrong or lying and that every nation on earth is together in a conspiracy to suppress the truth. The largest and most pervasive conspiracy of all time.

re: #34 jlakely

Say whatever you want about Heartland, just make sure it's fact-based. Charles pointed out our funding break-down from Sourcewatch. You don't see me flaming him, do you? (Though the "who funds you" game is tiresome. Break down Exxon's support of Heartland and it's peanuts for a think tank with a $6 million budget -- and nothing compared to what the warming side gets.)

Here is your obvious hypocrisy writ large. You are supposedly offended that Ludwig would make an accusation with insufficient proof that someone was paid by Heartland. Yet, you feel free in asserting, with no proof whatsoever, that the amount that 'the warming side' gets is larger. No proof, no hint of proof, not even an honest or coherent definition of what the 'warming' side is-- does that include every scientist who's published a paper showing the scientific truth that there's warming? That's not a side.

43 jlakely  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 2:25:51pm

re: #33 LudwigVanQuixote

It is evident that the "science" your institute produces in regards to AGW serves the financial and political interests of the groups that fund you.

Really? Funny how BP now stands for "Beyond Petroleum" and "Big Oil" were among the biggest cheerleaders for cap-and-trade.

It is questionable form for a scientist to associate with such groups because it calls his scientific rigor deeply into question.

Now, that's an honest opinion ... not a bald assertion of "fact" you could have no way of knowing (like he's paid by us). Fair enough. But hundreds of scientists -- from Harvard, MIT, Yale, and other prestigious universities -- have presented at our conferences. And we're grateful they don't share your view.

A troubling question is formed by this. Why would an otherwise excellent scientist, with a sterling reputation, come out and call the work of his colleagues a religion and spout the talking points of an institute like yours with no particular research of his own to back up his assertions?

Good question. Perhaps you should have asked him. But considering the boldness of it, perhaps he'd seen solid evidence to the contrary and got fed up with what he saw was the abandonment of the scientific search for truth and the mantra of "consensus."

For more science that goes against the "consensus," Google "CERN global warming sun."

44 Lidane  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 2:28:57pm

re: #42 Obdicut

It's a fools errand in a community where people understand basic science.

Yeah, this.

Heartland's propaganda might work on a wingnut site where people don't understand science, but it won't work here.

45 Obdicut  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 2:29:18pm

re: #43 jlakely

The CERN report does not say anything about the sun and global warming. You want to know how I know? Because the scientist who led the project says so.

Here, I'll like to the 'basic' explanation on skeptical science so that you can understand.

[Link: www.skepticalscience.com...]

"At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step"

Further explanation of what the experiment was, and what it didn't prove-- what in fact we know not to be true.

In reality, the CERN experiment only tests the bolded step in this list of requirements for cosmic rays to be causing global warming:

Solar magnetic field must be getting stronger
The number of cosmic rays reaching Earth must be dropping
Cosmic rays must successfully seed clouds, which requires:
Cosmic rays must trigger aerosol (liquid droplet) formation
These newly-formed aerosols must grow sufficiently through condensation to form cloud-condensation nuclei (CCN)
The CCN must lead to increased cloud formation
Cloud cover on Earth must be declining

In short, the CERN experiment only tested one-third of one out of four requirements to blame global warming on cosmic rays. Additionally scientists have measured solar activity and the number of cosmic rays reaching Earth, and neither meets the first two requirements listed above. Both solar magentic field strength and the number of cosmic rays reaching Earth have been flat over the past 50+ years (Figure 1).

Do you deny that that last bolded sentence is true?

46 Decatur Deb  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 2:30:18pm

re: #44 Lidane

Yeah, this.

Heartland's propaganda might work on a wingnut site where people don't understand science, but it won't work here.

Perhaps we could help him find a stalker friendlier blog

47 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 2:32:42pm

re: #43 jlakely

For more science that goes against the "consensus," Google "CERN global warming sun."

Laffo: [Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

48 jlakely  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 2:32:46pm

re: #38 Charles

Ok. Believe what you want to believe.

I enjoyed reviving what was a dead thread underneath a day-old post. Hope you all had fun.

49 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 2:33:47pm

re: #48 jlakely

Is that the flounce already? Awwww…

50 Obdicut  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 2:34:54pm

re: #48 jlakely

It really puzzles me what sort of person you can be. The science of global warming is not difficult. Someone with an average intelligence can easily grasp it. I assume that you must know the truth. You must know how much harm will be done in the world by global warming. I supposed it's possible that you've forced yourself to believe your own hype, but it somehow seems unlikely.

What could fuel a nihilism of this type? To deny something that you know causes harm? It's very similar to the tobacco work. I cannot really fathom how a human being can lack sympathy and empathy to the degree necessary to profit solely from the suffering of others.

51 Lidane  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 2:35:29pm

re: #49 000G

Is that the flounce already? Awww…

Seriously. It's almost a land speed record. ROFL.

52 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 2:40:42pm

re: #43 jlakely

But hundreds of scientists -- from Harvard, MIT, Yale, and other prestigious universities

Really not so much. How many of them are in climate?

-- have presented at our conferences. And we're grateful they don't share your view.

Well at least you are honest about your bias - which of course means that you are not to be trusted as a source of science. Thank you for admitting that. That, by the way, is checkmate. And further is it appropriate that scientists who should be impartial should be consorting with an admittedly biased propaganda organization like yours and only reporting what you want to hear?

For more science that goes against the "consensus," Google "CERN global warming sun."

And here you are simply lying.

This is a matter of fact. You are lying. The research at CERN in no way whatsoever undermines the basic facts of Climate science. The scientists involved with the project will be the first to tell you that.

The research studies the link between cloud formation in the upper atmosphere and cosmic rays (which are mostly protons and neutrons). As an undergraduate I recall doing the relativity experiment of muon counting down at the Earth's surface.

But that is a digression.

So here, I am calling you a liar. Here is why. This is science and not politics or a court room. You don't have the room to jig or amble away from the facts. Cloud formation by cosmic rays is one part of one driver of climate. Clouds also get formed by other processes. So you are talking about an effect on an effect in a system when many others are in play. Does that invalidate everything else as you imply? Of course not! Does it go against consensus... of course not!

Further, for the change in cosmic ray events to be driving the climate changes we observe you would have to show that cosmic ray events have changed dramatically in a way consistent with a century of warming. This is simply not the case. You are therefore lying.

Of course that effect would also have to be larger as opposed to the very real and measurable effects of all that CO2 and methane going up there as well as lost albedo from the obviously shrinking ice caps.

53 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 2:41:18pm

re: #46 Decatur Deb

Perhaps we could help him find a stalker friendlier blog

I wonder at what point he ends up rambling about hairdos.

54 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 2:41:44pm

re: #45 Obdicut

You beat me to it. I really am running around and trying to get ready for sundown. Great post.

55 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 2:50:03pm

re: #13 jlakely

2. As for scientists being paid a modest $1,000 honoraria for speaking at Heartland's climate conferences -- that is common practice all over the think tank world, on all sides. It is idiotic to suggest it's a scandal to pay the travel costs of people you're asking to travel thousands of miles to share their research. Are you not curious if speakers are paid at climate alarmist conferences? Check into it. I'll bet you'll find that ... GASP! ... those folks are paid for their time, travel and work preparing for a conference.

So how much do you pay them? I should have read that more carefully the first time. Inquiring minds want to know. Thank you for admitting that.

56 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 2:51:46pm

re: #55 LudwigVanQuixote

Uh, I believe he was talking about the "speakers[…] at climate alarmist conferences". As for the speakers at the climate denialist conferences, he did mention the $1,000 honoraria above.

57 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 2:54:13pm

re: #56 000G

Uh, I believe he was talking about the "speakers[…] at climate alarmist conferences". As for the speakers at the climate denialist conferences, he did mention the $1,000 honoraria above.

Yes but he is also talking about the "work they put into the preparing for his conferences" What work and how much? And how much do they pay?

I'll have you know that in general, going to an actual science conference is paid for out of your grant (as in your own research groups funds). So I am curious how much are they paying.

58 wrenchwench  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 2:56:08pm

re: #49 000G

Is that the flounce already? Awww…

He's still logged in.

59 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 2:58:41pm

Good so I will ask directly again... How much do they pay the people at their conferences?

Come on communications director, how much do you pay them? How much is a paper worth? How much grant money do you hand out to those whose "research you are grateful for?"

60 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 3:01:10pm

So much silence from him... I thought he said he was enjoying this.

Well he admitted his group pays them honoraria. OK how much?

61 jaunte  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 3:04:40pm

re: #60 LudwigVanQuixote

Image: img-0017.jpg

62 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 3:06:16pm

re: #61 jaunte

Image: img-0017.jpg

He's become strangely silent after being caught out like that?

Good so I will ask directly again... How much do they pay the people at their conferences?

Come on communications director, how much do you pay them? How much is a paper worth? How much grant money do you hand out to those whose "research you are grateful for?"

You said yourself you were grateful for them... How grateful are you?

63 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 3:12:13pm

Well Shabbos is rolling in. This is not over. I shall have to make a very large page out of this. I will pay special attention to his 400 page report (as in pack of lies) and his assertion that Heartland doesn't say that cigarettes don't cause cancer (no they just use Richard Lindzen who says that as an expert)!

This fellow will find that when people like him step out of the echo chamber into a place where people know a little about science they get shown to be the fools and propagandists they are, and that their many lies and obfuscations simply will not fly.

I wish everyone a Good Shabbos (if in the Tribe) and a great weekend to all in any case. See you on the flip side.

Ohh and please keep an eye on this thread if he takes the courageous tact of posting over the holiday when I am not here to deal with him.

64 Charles Johnson  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 5:50:50pm

I'll never understand why right wing shills always think it's a winning strategy to be overweeningly smug.

65 lostlakehiker  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 6:44:16pm

re: #27 jlakely

Glad to hear it, LVQ. (And I'm tickled that my "like" meter keeps plummeting for merely asking that criticisms of The Heartland Institute be based in fact rather than conjecture, links that don't actually say what the words in the post promise, etc.)

Jim

You mince words when you claim that Giaever is not in your pay. An honorarium is income, reportable as such on federal income tax returns. Maybe it's not a lot of money. Maybe it's standard practice in your line of work. You can't get scientists to say what you want them to say for free, after all. But it's pay.

You have one little point. There doesn't seem to be any proof, at least not yet, that you've paid Giaever on a scale that goes beyond the matter of honoraria. You may be certain that this community of readers will keep digging.

You, on the other hand, are actively at work digging the graves of millions. As I write, fires still smolder near hard-hit Bastrop, Texas. The drought goes on. Now global warming is but one contributing factor. It's hotter than it would have been but for our extra CO2 blanket, and other things play into a drought than merely the rate at which soil moisture evaporates. But you are, so far is it lies within your power, working to prevent us from understanding that we must defend ourselves from more of the same.

If you had the courage, and that's asking a lot, you might ask yourself whether you're in the wrong camp. You could read up on the actual science. You could figure it out. And you could renounce your current vocation. You're doing tremendous harm.

John Newton came over from the dark side. his story

66 lostlakehiker  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 9:04:50pm

re: #10 LudwigVanQuixote

OK... then what exactly is is motivation then?

If he is doing this out of his pure love of science that he thinks has gone wrong, why does he not do what every other scientist (who is not a paid shill) does in that position and publish his objections in a meaningful and peer reviewed way?

Why would someone who is not a climate scientist and has no connection to the field professionally, make such obvious errors in his arguments and overlook such basic science in his statements> Of course he knows the basic science. Of course he could look up the hard core climate science. Why damage an otherwise stirling reputation saying such nonsense?

Why would he be the one exception to the other people at Heartland and Cato who do get paid to say the same stuff?

What do you think the answer is if he is not getting paid?

I think it very likely that he was paid. So likely that the alternative is preposterous. But as a technical point of logic, you didn't prove it.

67 Prononymous, rogue demon hunter  Fri, Sep 16, 2011 9:35:18pm

re: #34 jlakely

And, as Charles helpfully points out, Exxon stopped sending money our way in 2006. Our first climate conference was 2008. Isn't that interesting? Doesn't it suggest that Heartland takes its positions on principle?

AHahahahahaha. Your killing me.

Exxon cutting funding before your climate conference suggests Heartland Institute takes positions on principle? LOL. It could mean that you decided to cut ties to give the false illusion of independence, or that they are just passing it to you indirectly now, or that they decided that you aren't worth the cost/benefit, or any of a million other possibilities. But about the last thing I'd think is that you did it on principle. In fact, keeping your funding secret merely makes me suspect a desire to hide collusion with various groups, considering your history as industry propaganda shills.

68 jlakely  Sat, Sep 17, 2011 7:43:54am

re: #63 LudwigVanQuixote

Wow. Thread goes above 50 with promises of more. Nice.

This fellow will find that when people like him step out of the echo chamber into a place where people know a little about science they get shown to be the fools and propagandists they are, and that their many lies and obfuscations simply will not fly.

We have invited, and had speak at our conferences, scientists who believe the earth is warming dangerously and that man is to blame. Heartland, unlike the "other side," is not afraid of debate. (Go here and click on the Scott Denning video.)

Enjoy the holiday, LVQ. I may or may not be back. I rarely bother engaging in these sorts of threads because it's rather pointless. You won't be convinced, and I'll end up being called names, evil, etc. I jumped in, though, because I know the reputation of Charles Johnson and LGF — and admired it greatly when he was exposing Dan Rather.

Cheers!

69 wrenchwench  Sat, Sep 17, 2011 8:48:45am

re: #68 jlakely

You're still a propagandist. I don't know about "fool". You could be making a lot of money at it. I wouldn't touch Breitbart money, but whatever.

70 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Sep 17, 2011 5:33:48pm

re: #68 jlakely

What a pack of lies. Your entire purpose is to obfuscate the science as much as possible. You are so arrogant that you seem to believe that even the laws of nature will somehow care about your delusions. As to you may or may not be back... Well I am sure you will, largely because your ego won't suffer it or all the other lies, and likely dangerous admissions you have already made here.

For example... Scientists don't get paid for their work for a conference. The work is done independently and then presented at a conference. I know this because unlike you, I am an actual scientist.

But thank you for admitting that you pay for tainted and untrue work.

You did do that you know.

What you have not done is tell us what your pay scale is. You denied that one exists at first but then let something slip. Well we won't let you slither out of that.

How much do you pay them?

Anyway. I am off to have an evening with my girl. I'll be writing up a lot about you, your lies and some other fun things about Dr. Gaiever and his connections to people like you tomorrow. It will be a large and fresh page for you to come and get crucified on.

71 Obdicut  Sat, Sep 17, 2011 5:45:06pm

re: #68 jlakely

Can't help but notice that you failed to answer whether or not you deny that cosmic rays have not actually increased appreciably in the last few hundred years, which obviously means that they can't be the cause of global warming.

It's almost as though you don't want to talk about the science, but instead prefer to prance around with a smug tone saying--well, what did you say in your last post? A claim that the scientists who know that the earth is warming won't participate in debate?

You're claiming that deniers are willing to debate, while those who know the earth is warming are not-- while you dodge a debate with me on that subject?

Fucking rich!

72 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Sep 17, 2011 5:52:15pm

re: #71 Obdicut

I'd like him to reply to the question about how much they pay their experts. He admitted to it...

those folks are paid for their time, travel and work preparing for a conference.

Hmmmm...

You don't get paid by the conference to create a paper in the science world. While we are at it, how much is an expert, who is listed as an expert on their site get paid?

He went all mum about that.

73 Obdicut  Sat, Sep 17, 2011 6:01:21pm

re: #72 LudwigVanQuixote

He also is trying to make it look like they get $1000 all told. What he actually said, if you break it down, is that they get $1000 on top of their travel and room and board expenses. While it's true that honorariums are frequent, many universities have policies against their employees receiving them precisely because they may engender a conflict of interest. And receiving an honorarium from a neutral organizer of a conference-- say, the organizer of a biology conference where Dawkins' advocates and Goulds' were duking it out-- is entirely different from receiving an honorarium at an unscientific conference funded by big oil and the Rev. Moon.

And the payment for papers is even more directly unethical. I mean, that's just kind of ridiculous to even attempt to defend.

74 Kronocide  Sat, Sep 17, 2011 6:02:48pm

re: #68 jlakely

Enjoy the holiday, LVQ. I may or may not be back. I rarely bother engaging in these sorts of threads because it's rather pointless.

It is pointless because you cannot debate based on science or facts. I gave you the benefit of the doubt until the "CERN: sun causes global warming" echo chamber meme.

So yes, it's pointless for you to post here until you cut the talking point memes and have a real debate about the Heartland Institute's contribution to global warming denialism. Pointing out that Exxon quit in one year but HI held it's position a few years later is a pretty weak point.

75 Interesting Times  Sat, Sep 17, 2011 6:18:43pm

re: #70 LudwigVanQuixote

What a pack of lies. Your entire purpose is to obfuscate the science as much as possible. You are so arrogant that you seem to believe that even the laws of nature will somehow care about your delusions. As to you may or may not be back...

The shill came back
The very next day
The shill came back
We thought he was a goner,
But the shill came back
The very next day
The shill came back
He just couldn't stay away

Bonus updings to anyone who gets the reference :)

76 Kronocide  Sat, Sep 17, 2011 6:45:58pm

The 62 year old bachelor w a ponytail & a bicycle with Ronald McDonald flag accuses me of arrested development?

Oh jeez. Next he's going to start calling Charles 'shutty' again.

Childish.

77 Interesting Times  Sat, Sep 17, 2011 6:48:17pm

re: #72 LudwigVanQuixote

I'd like him to reply to the question about how much they pay their experts. He admitted to it...

For a director of communications, jlakely's writing style doesn't exactly exude scintillating, concise clarity (Or is that deliberate? Overwhelm people with a wall of text in the hopes they'll just assume you know what you're talking about?)

At any rate, what I gathered from his first comment was this:

- He admits to the honorarium for conference speakers while trying to gloss over it as normal and widespread (see Obdicut's #73 for rebuttal)

- He claims Ivar Giaever is "among more than 200 unpaid "policy advisors" for Heartland." (Not sure why he put "policy advisors" in scare quotes - is that an admission of a different sort?)

And on a side note, fascinating that he had no response to your original post's mention of Heartland defending US businesses who use overseas child and slave labor. It would be nice if jlakely (in addition to AGW denial) also stops being a child labor endorsing, pro-slavery freak :)

78 RanchTooth  Sat, Sep 17, 2011 8:42:41pm

Here's my issue. As a scientist, when there is the slightest notion that a conflict of interest is in play, it MUST be disclosed when publishing or speaking. Any such impropriety must be disclosed by the scientist as it relates to their work. I've had to do this because I lab I interned in works closely with a company and will be releasing a patent together... therefore, on my publication, it fully discloses the conflict of interest between the company and the University.

Since Ivar is unpaid, I do not think that he would need disclose information at scientific talks related to climate change... but then again, he himself doesn't give these sorts of presentations, publish papers on climate change, etc. (please correct me if I'm wrong).

So, the real nitty gritty here is whether or Ivar is speaking as a talking head for the company, or as a scientist making claims about something and having the data to produce and denounce other such claims. If it is the first, the conflict of interest is a mute point. Sure, he's a Nobel Laureate, so he's a great scientist, but people respect him for the work he has done in physics. If it is the second, and Ivar were actually deny claims in the scientific community about AGW with actual data, and he had all this funding from wherever, he would have to disclose that as I mentioned in the first paragraph. I don't see that outcome happening anytime soon, though.

79 Kronocide  Sun, Sep 18, 2011 1:40:10am

re: #34 jlakely

Break down Exxon's support of Heartland and it's peanuts for a think tank with a $6 million budget -- and nothing compared to what the warming side gets.)

And, as Charles helpfully points out, Exxon stopped sending money our way in 2006.

Heartland doesn't show it's funding so saying that Exxon hasn't provided money isn't worth much. The record shows funding, it's up to Exxon or you to show it's stopped, it's entirely reasonable and pragmatic to assume it's continued either directly or indirectly.

But the most offensive thing you've said is that '(the funding we've received)... is nothing to what the warming side gets.'

That's a clear implication that monies spent on real science (people freezing their asses of in the Arctic cutting ice cores, painstakingly looking at tree rings, etc) are getting paid $ to come to a predetermined opinion. That is nothing more than scurrilous projection. The $ Heartland received went to 'think tank' OpEds and psuedo scientists challenging or deliberately misinterpreting actual science. This is indisputable, the record shows this.

How much of Heartland's funding has been spent on actual collection of ice cores, tree rings, given to actual disciplined scientists to do actual mundane work capturing data relating to climate change?

Has Heartland spent any $ on actual science that has withstood the peer reviewed process?

Nice try attempting to elevate the efforts of Heartland to those of actual scientists, doing actual objective research. That may work on Fox zealots but it does not wash here.

80 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Sun, Sep 18, 2011 2:57:11am

re: #79 BigPapa

That's the odd thing that a lot of deniers do not want to debate and when they do they inevitably end up in Alex Jones territory pretty soon: their arguments neccessarily have to assume that standard contemporary scientific methods are ultimatively flawed and that pretty much the entirety of the scientific institutions are corrupt through and through by not admitting to the flawed methods and the consequentially flawed results and flawed conclusions – because they being flawed is supposedly obvious enough to be understood even by the layperson. It's a conspiracy theory of epic proportions, which is why shills like Mr Lakely choose to evade questions about the reality of the actual scientifc community.

81 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Sun, Sep 18, 2011 3:12:30am

Case in point:

"Climategate" on LGF.

82 Kronocide  Sun, Sep 18, 2011 7:49:53am

re: #80 000G

Inferring that 'they get bigger money than us' is a childish argument that absolutely is an inference of conspiracy. Tying Heartland to Jones at this point is the smallest of leaps. It's the same logic as saying 'well the mainstream media is biased' when you point out obviously biased news from right wing sources (primarily Fox). The response basically says 'yes we are biased, but so are the other guys, but there's more of them than us, so it's OK.'

I don't know what else it could mean. It's mind numbingly stupid teenage level logic.

Which is what Lakely is saying: Yes we are biased, but so are the other guys, but they get more money than us! Leave Giaver A-Lone! Maybe he could come back and tell me where I'm wrong, but I'm not holding my breath. He did imply he'd have a tough time here: was that some other inference that because he was speaking the truth and we can't handle the truth, we'd be ninnies about it, or, we'd see through his bullshit and hammer him on it?

What could the answer to that be?

I might as well admit that I'm part way through 'The Inquisition of Climate Science' and already riled up. I'm sure Likely will infer that I'm thereby biased (that whole equivocation/projection thing again) but I would stress the he would need to point out any errors in known fact first.

83 Lidane  Sun, Sep 18, 2011 9:13:56am

re: #82 BigPapa

Which is what Lakely is saying: Yes we are biased, but so are the other guys, but they get more money than us! Leave Giaver A-Lone!

Shorter Lakely:

84 b_sharp  Sun, Sep 18, 2011 12:50:50pm

When you know you aren't going to be around when the shit hits the fan, it's nice to have a pile of extra money in your pocket during your retirement.

If you're an unfeeling shit-head.

85 Achilles Tang  Sun, Sep 18, 2011 5:33:02pm

re: #68 jlakely

I may or may not be back. I rarely bother engaging in these sorts of threads because it's rather pointless. You won't be convinced, and I'll end up being called names, evil, etc.

Not evil; just ignorant. I have been looking for someplace where you take back your silly advice to google for ignorance. This particular piece of research that you base your institute's reputation on had been explained as irrelevant to AGW issues well before you started to post.

Doesn't that make you feel stupid, embarrassed, in need of serious reading? Anything?


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

^ back to top ^

TwitterFacebook

Turn off all ads for a full year by subscribing!
For about 33 cents a day (per month) or 22 cents a day (per year), our subscription option turns off all advertisements at LGF!
Read more...

► LGF Headlines

  • Loading...

► Tweeted Articles

  • Loading...

► Tweeted Pages

  • Loading...

► Top 10 Comments

  • Loading...

► Bottom Comments

  • Loading...

► Recent Comments

  • Loading...

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud

► Contact

You must have Javascript enabled to use the contact form.
Your email:

Subject:

Message:


Messages may be published unless you request otherwise.
Tech Note:
Using the Contact Form
LGF Pages

This button leads to the main index of LGF Pages, our user-submitted articles. You can post your own LGF Pages simply by registering a free account with us.

Create a Page

This is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.

Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.

Last updated: 2014-03-07 2:19 pm PST

LGF User's Guide
Recent Pages
Randall Gross
Dramatic Decline in California’s Teen Birthrates Over 22 Years
More data demonstrating once again that family planning and easy access to birth control works to reduce teen pregnancy, unwanted children, and abortions. The numbers are part of a nationwide trend that mark a dramatic turnabout over the past two ...

23 minutes ago
Views: 36 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0
FemNaziBitch
Members of Congress Take ‘Minimum Wage Challenge’ to Live Off Reduced Budget for a Week
Since he began his minimum wage challenge on Sunday, former Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, now president of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, has had eggs and toast, a bowl of cereal with a peanut butter and jelly ...

36 minutes ago
Views: 39 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 1 • Rating: 0
Mentis Fugit
Frisson
Over at the quirky Riddled blog, I encountered this music video link. I have the album, but I had last listened long ago, and I had forgotten the lyrics. The lengthy, moody intro slowly drew me back thirty five years, ...

11 hours, 59 minutes ago
Views: 57 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0
BadExampleMan
The painful futility of war
This makes me furious. These men pledged their loyalty to their country and their country betrayed them. It treated them as disposable, throwing their lives away in a war that was premised on lies, that was chosen gleefully, and that ...

2 days, 4 hours ago
Views: 238 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 1 • Rating: 0
MichaelJ
Mick Fanning Wins J-Bay Open 2014
More: MICK FANNING WINS J-BAY OPEN Finals day for the contest was run in perfect Supertubes conditions. Too bad Kelly Slater and Jordy Smith were eliminated in lesser quality surf - it would have been amazing to have both of ...

2 days, 13 hours ago
Views: 188 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0
Rightwingconspirator
ISIS Threatens Iraqi Christians in Mosul
Baghdad, Iraq (CNN) -- Extremists occupying large swaths of Iraq and Syria have issued a threat to Iraqi Christians in the city of Mosul: accept Islam, pay extra taxes to Islamic Sharia courts or face "death by the sword." ...

4 days, 15 hours ago
Views: 601 • Comments: 9
Tweets: 18 • Rating: 3
Thrazidun
Paris: Jews Fight Back Against Islamist Mob - Jewish World - News - Arutz Sheva
More: Paris: Jews Fight Back Against Islamist Mob - Jewish World - News - Arutz Sheva

4 days, 21 hours ago
Views: 654 • Comments: 5
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 1
GlutenFreeJesus
Gotta love Chicago
Admittedly, I only started following these guys in the past year or two. They have been in the Chicago scene for awhile. And I kick myself after every show for not following them sooner. For any fans of Led Zeppelin, ...

4 days, 22 hours ago
Views: 297 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 2
wheat-dogghazi
Rachel Aviv: A Middle-School Cheating Scandal Raises Questions About No Child Left Behind
Writing for The New Yorker, Rachel Aviv profiles some of the teachers and principals caught up in Atlanta's standardized cheating scandal. Focusing on Parks Middle School, which is located in a "rough" section of the city, her article portrays a ...

5 days, 7 hours ago
Views: 455 • Comments: 2
Tweets: 8 • Rating: 2
Feline Fearless Leader
More Floral Fireworks
Another montage of macro photos - focusing this time on flower close-ups. Taken using the standard lens on a Nikon 3200 using the a macro auto-setting. My observation for taking these is that a breeze can be quite annoying. :) ...

6 days, 10 hours ago
Views: 330 • Comments: 5
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 6
 Frank says:

Get yer ass out there and register to VOTE!