So Bob's forum is simply an echo chamber.

LOL

pineinthegrass wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Once again, pure conservative BS. It is typical that conservatives here will accept unsupported conclusions on a right wing blog by a geologist on the payroll of Koch Bros. funded Heartland Institute, particularly when those conclusions have been clearly refuted by peer reviewed climatologists.

Dog couldn't discuss any specific details about how the article was wrong. Dog just insulted conservatives with generalities and attacked the author by trying to tie him to the Koch brothers. Hell, with the principal of "six degrees of seperation" I could probably tie Dog to the Koch brothers too, not that it would mean anything. A typical attack post with no substance, details or truth. "Conservatives" were discussing the article. For one, Fred said he agreed humans have contributed to warming.

In fact, this whole thread is a great example of a typical Courthouse thread. It's pretty much just hurling insults, most coming from the left in this case. And this is how you prefer the Courthouse to be?

If you don't like Bob's forum, you don't have to read it. But it seems everyone is...

Pine couldn't discuss any specific details about how my post was wrong. Instead she goes into personal attack mode without even commenting on the actual details of my post.

Everything I posted was correct and factual, as has been born out by the thread itself, that the OP was conservative BS. Bob simply did his usual cut and paste from a right wing blog and the usual four posters continued to bounce echos off of each other agreeing with it, without even opening the link, reading the opinion piece, check the author for veracity, and checking the credibility of opposing viewpoints. Of course if they had, they would have had to agree that it was simply conservative BS from a geologist funded by the Koch Bros. through the Heartland Institute. Can anyone who actually read the opinion piece from the right wing blog have any other opinion?

Something the Dog Said wrote:

pineinthegrass wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Once again, pure conservative BS. It is typical that conservatives here will accept unsupported conclusions on a right wing blog by a geologist on the payroll of Koch Bros. funded Heartland Institute, particularly when those conclusions have been clearly refuted by peer reviewed climatologists.

Dog couldn't discuss any specific details about how the article was wrong. Dog just insulted conservatives with generalities and attacked the author by trying to tie him to the Koch brothers. Hell, with the principal of "six degrees of seperation" I could probably tie Dog to the Koch brothers too, not that it would mean anything. A typical attack post with no substance, details or truth. "Conservatives" were discussing the article. For one, Fred said he agreed humans have contributed to warming.

In fact, this whole thread is a great example of a typical Courthouse thread. It's pretty much just hurling insults, most coming from the left in this case. And this is how you prefer the Courthouse to be?

If you don't like Bob's forum, you don't have to read it. But it seems everyone is...

Pine couldn't discuss any specific details about how my post was wrong. Instead she goes into personal attack mode without even commenting on the actual details of my post.

Everything I posted was correct and factual, as has been born out by the thread itself, that the OP was conservative BS. Bob simply did his usual cut and paste from a right wing blog and the usual four posters continued to bounce echos off of each other agreeing with it, without even opening the link, reading the opinion piece, check the author for veracity, and checking the credibility of opposing viewpoints. Of course if they had, they would have had to agree that it was simply conservative BS from a geologist funded by the Koch Bros. through the Heartland Institute. Can anyone who actually read the opinion piece from the right wing blog have any other opinion?

OK, to be fair, I need to ask if that quote of your post is correct? I didn't see your post, and I assumed the quote posted here is correct. And I don't see you yet disputing it.

If the quote is correct, then your reply makes no sense. Your only "facts" were not specific to the article and instead talked of the Koch Bros supporting Heartland who supported the author. That is not a comment about any "facts" in the article itself. It's just a "guilty by association" post. And I did comment on everything in your post, assuming that was in fact your post.

If the quote is not correct, then I'd appreciate the actual post that you made and I will comment on that instead.

Yes, the original post was from a conservative blog. But it linked to an AITSE article and just quoted from it. So far as AITSE goes, I can't really tell if they are conservative or not. They do post articles from both sides. But those articles do not need to follow mainstream science. I prefer mainstream, but if they are fair for both sides I have no problem with other ideas. I like to see different thoughts too, so long as it isn't entirely one sided.

pineinthegrass wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

pineinthegrass wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Once again, pure conservative BS. It is typical that conservatives here will accept unsupported conclusions on a right wing blog by a geologist on the payroll of Koch Bros. funded Heartland Institute, particularly when those conclusions have been clearly refuted by peer reviewed climatologists.

Dog couldn't discuss any specific details about how the article was wrong. Dog just insulted conservatives with generalities and attacked the author by trying to tie him to the Koch brothers. Hell, with the principal of "six degrees of seperation" I could probably tie Dog to the Koch brothers too, not that it would mean anything. A typical attack post with no substance, details or truth. "Conservatives" were discussing the article. For one, Fred said he agreed humans have contributed to warming.

In fact, this whole thread is a great example of a typical Courthouse thread. It's pretty much just hurling insults, most coming from the left in this case. And this is how you prefer the Courthouse to be?

If you don't like Bob's forum, you don't have to read it. But it seems everyone is...

Pine couldn't discuss any specific details about how my post was wrong. Instead she goes into personal attack mode without even commenting on the actual details of my post.

Everything I posted was correct and factual, as has been born out by the thread itself, that the OP was conservative BS. Bob simply did his usual cut and paste from a right wing blog and the usual four posters continued to bounce echos off of each other agreeing with it, without even opening the link, reading the opinion piece, check the author for veracity, and checking the credibility of opposing viewpoints. Of course if they had, they would have had to agree that it was simply conservative BS from a geologist funded by the Koch Bros. through the Heartland Institute. Can anyone who actually read the opinion piece from the right wing blog have any other opinion?

OK, to be fair, I need to ask if that quote of your post is correct? I didn't see your post, and I assumed the quote posted here is correct. And I don't see you yet disputing it.

If the quote is correct, then your reply makes no sense. Your only "facts" were not specific to the article and instead talked of the Koch Bros supporting Heartland who supported the author. That is not a comment about any "facts" in the article itself. It's just a "guilty by association" post. And I did comment on everything in your post, assuming that was in fact your post.

If the quote is not correct, then I'd appreciate the actual post that you made and I will comment on that instead.

Yes, the original post was from a conservative blog. But it linked to an AITSE article and just quoted from it. So far as AITSE goes, I can't really tell if they are conservative or not. They do post articles from both sides. But those articles do not need to follow mainstream science. I prefer mainstream, but if they are fair for both sides I have no problem with other ideas. I like to see different thoughts too, so long as it isn't entirely one sided.

Did you by chance bother to verify the credentials of Bob Carter, the author of the piece? Or the criticisms of his "works" by his peers? Or that he is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute? Or the source of funding for the Heartland Institute? (ExxonMobil, Koch Bros.)

Did you also examine his claims that Bob supported in his OP? That there has been no increase in global warming in the past 15 years? Did you check the veracity of that claim? If so, you would have found that there has been marked increases in global warming the past 16 years.

so yes, the post was BS, BS that is being spread by conservatives.

Which is fine in Bob's World.

Something the Dog Said wrote: Did you by chance bother to verify the credentials of Bob Carter, the author of the piece? Or the criticisms of his "works" by his peers? Or that he is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute? Or the source of funding for the Heartland Institute? (ExxonMobil, Koch Bros.)

Did you also examine his claims that Bob supported in his OP? That there has been no increase in global warming in the past 15 years? Did you check the veracity of that claim? If so, you would have found that there has been marked increases in global warming the past 16 years.

so yes, the post was BS, BS that is being spread by conservatives.

Which is fine in Bob's World.

First of all, by your non-answer, I guess your post in Bob's forum was correctly quoted here. And I've already commented on every word of that post.

I've also already commented on Koch, Heartland, and Carter.

So that leaves the 15 years of no warming claim. If you bother to read the topic again in Bob's forum you'll see that I already commented on that in great detail yesterday. Why didn't you comment about the 15 years when you posted, but instead posted stuff had nothing to do with any claims made in the article?

pineinthegrass wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Did you by chance bother to verify the credentials of Bob Carter, the author of the piece? Or the criticisms of his "works" by his peers? Or that he is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute? Or the source of funding for the Heartland Institute? (ExxonMobil, Koch Bros.)

Did you also examine his claims that Bob supported in his OP? That there has been no increase in global warming in the past 15 years? Did you check the veracity of that claim? If so, you would have found that there has been marked increases in global warming the past 16 years.

so yes, the post was BS, BS that is being spread by conservatives.

Which is fine in Bob's World.

First of all, by your non-answer, I guess your post in Bob's forum was correctly quoted here. And I've already commented on every word of that post.

I've also already commented on Koch, Heartland, and Carter.

So that leaves the 15 years of no warming claim. If you bother to read the topic again in Bob's forum you'll see that I already commented on that in great detail yesterday. Why didn't you comment about the 15 years when you posted, but instead posted stuff had nothing to do with any claims made in the article?

You have yet to post on Koch, Heartland, and Carter in response to my post, so I am waiting. And you did not respond to my query in regard to your earlier post. Since I have been moderated out of Bob's forum, I do not participate there. Which is the purpose of their echo chamber.

I am still waiting for your answer to my question that has been posed to you, what in my post was not true and factual. Bob's post was conservative BS, was it not? Carter's opinion which Bob cut, pasted and endorsed was factually false, and was paid for by funds from the Koch Bros. Is that not correct? So, my post, which Bob moderated out of the thread, was true and factual. However, in Bob's World, you are not allowed to challenge the veracity of his posts.

Which is fine in Bob's World.

Funny how I've also had posts go to the bucket and I'm a conservative. Probably due to the fact my posts deserved to be there.

Something the Dog Said wrote: You have yet to post on Koch, Heartland, and Carter in response to my post, so I am waiting. And you did not respond to my query in regard to your earlier post. Since I have been moderated out of Bob's forum, I do not participate there. Which is the purpose of their echo chamber.

I am still waiting for your answer to my question that has been posed to you, what in my post was not true and factual. Bob's post was conservative BS, was it not? Carter's opinion which Bob cut, pasted and endorsed was factually false, and was paid for by funds from the Koch Bros. Is that not correct? So, my post, which Bob moderated out of the thread, was true and factual. However, in Bob's World, you are not allowed to challenge the veracity of his posts.

Which is fine in Bob's World.

I already mentioned your attempt at "guilt by association" when you tried to tie the Koch Bros to Carter's paper. But I'll elaborate further if you wish.

I have no problem talking about where the money comes from so long as there is other substance, but you made no comments about what was actually in the paper. Just because there might be funding from a twice removed source (Koch to Heartland to Carter) does not mean you ignore everything in the paper. And I'm not saying I agree with the paper, I made my points about it in Bob's forum.

Also it appears very little, and probably zero, Koch Bros money went into the Heartland Institute regarding climate change anyway. From the Charles Koch Foundation...

“Our giving to the Heartland Institute has been repeatedly misrepresented in recent stories by the media as reaching into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. It’s unfortunate that those reporting on the matter did not seek the facts as they would have found the Charles Koch Foundation provided $25,000 to the Heartland Institute in 2011 for research in healthcare, not climate change, and this was the first and only donation the Foundation made to the institute in more than a decade. The Foundation has made no further commitments of funding to Heartland,”

http://www.charleskochfoundationfacts.org/2012/02/foundation-statement-on-heartland-institute/

So you made the claim of Koch influence over this paper, where is your evidence? If the Koch Foundation statement is correct (and I don't see why they'd lie about it, they should be proud of who they give grants to), then your statements were false.

By the way, do you enjoy watching PBS's NOVA? Do you think NOVA is a good source for science information? Well guess what, Koch donated $7 million to NOVA. And I could also mention other worthy science education groups that get Koch grants.

If you posted an article about climate change and some conservative made no comment about what was in the article and instead said to ignore it because the research was funded by the "biased" National Science Foundation I'm pretty sure you'd take issue with that. Not that I consider the research they pay for to be biased, but the NSF does take a strong position on climate change and they provide grants of hundreds of millions for climate change research and related work. I don't think it effects the research, but does research looking into the opposite side of the NSF's climate change position get NSF grant money as easily? Don't know.

Back to the Koch Bros. What evidence do you have that they funded Heartland for climate change related issues, and what evidence do you have that Carter got any Koch money for his paper?

edited to add...

There were papers apparently stolen from the Heartland Institute with claims of funding from Koch. But the statement I posted from the Koch Foundation seems to be in reply to such claims. The papers do mention the $25K (which apparently did not go to climate change) and it claimed that Heartland hoped to get $200K in 2012. But Koch says they've made no futher commitments to funding Heartland.

So you agree that Heartland Institute pays Carter for his anti-global warming advocacy. And that the Heartland Institute receives funding from the Koch Bros as well as ExxonMobil, Scaife and other conservative organizations. These are unequivocal facts.

Carter also receives funding from numerous other anti-climate change fronts, such as the Institute for Public Affairs (funded by ExxonMobil, BHP-Bilton, Western Mining, Shell, Caltex, ESSO and other fossil fuel companies), The Galileo Movement (funded by Hancock Coal), the Science and Public Policy Institute (funded by ExxonMobil), the International Climate Science Coalition (funded by Heartland), the Australian Climate Science Coalition (funded by Heartland), the Global Warming Policy Foundation (funded by European power and coal companies) and Repeal the Act (UK).
As to the Koch Bros. being proud to acknowledge their funding of organizations, try a bit more research. According to IRS records relating to their foundations, they have contributed over $67 million to climate change denial groups. That of course does not include contributions to political groups supporting politicians that are actively against climate change science (see Inhofe).

In regard to the science expertise of Carter, which he claims makes him an equal to Dr. Hayfoe and other climatologists, his expertise and background is in paleontology, that is the study of layered rock strata. All of his peer reviewed literature (according to his website) is in that area. On the other hand, his published works regarding climate science are all in non-peer reviewed economic journals and blogs. And on which he has been harshly criticized by those who actually study and work in climatology.

As to the article, his claims that there is broad agreement between his studies and those of climate scientists, that is obviously false. Further, his statement that there has been no global warming since 1998 has been so thoroughly refuted that he and his science must be considered ludicrous. Even his fellow geologists have totally debunked his claims, and the climate scientists in his homeland have roundly criticized him.

But since a right wing blog posts his claims, that is all an echo chamber has to rely upon to take it as gospel. And yes, the article in the right wing blog that was cut and pasted by Bob in his echo chamber is conservative BS.

It appears that a few people feel left out and lonely... let me get out my very tiny violin...

http://www.jdrfbayarea.org/blog/2012/heartstrings-and-violins/

So sad.