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.