Denialist Incest
Gee, was that the Heartland Institute I saw cited at the bottom of that link you titled, "The Myth of Scientific Consensus?" But this gets better. Get the children out of the room; this here is about incest.
Let's follow this through, shall we? If you're going to make me wade through this, believe me, I'm going to make you eat it.
Let's start with this Heartland thing. Hey, I noticed something: not
one single direct cite by title and named author of one paper published in any peer-reviewed journal. Not ONE. You know why? Because if they cite someone by name, or a paper by title and publication, THEY'LL GET SUED FOR SLANDER, and they know it.
So basically this is lies, because if they put someone's name on it they'll get sued.
Now let's follow this incest trail thing, shall we? Following that link at the bottom of "The Myth of Scientific Consensus" leads us to an article that it is citing, right? Right? Well, actually, no, not exactly. Nor is it precisely stated where exactly what particular claims are made. That's not a reference, it's a lie, plain and simple, right there in your face. They'd like you to THINK there's a reference, but guess what you find if you look at those links?
Scientific articles published in peer-reviewed journals, right? Right?
Wrong. Not ONE. The closest they come,
here, is a reference to
this, where the abstract reads, "The Palaeocene/Eocene thermal maximum, ~55 million years ago, was a brief period of widespread, extreme climatic warming, that was associated with massive atmospheric greenhouse gas input. Although aspects of the resulting environmental changes are well documented at low latitudes, no data were available to quantify simultaneous changes in the Arctic region. Here we identify the Palaeocene/Eocene thermal maximum in a marine sedimentary sequence obtained during the Arctic Coring Expedition. We show that sea surface temperatures near the North Pole increased from ~18 °C to over 23 °C during this event. Such warm values imply the
absence of ice and thus exclude the influence of ice-albedo feedbacks on this Arctic warming." Emphasis mine.
Yet, Heartland claims: "The scientists report extensive ice-rafted sedimentary debris was deposited in the Norwegian-Greenland Sea
roughly 30 to 38 million years ago. Evidence indicates the sediment was carried by glacial ice rather than sea ice, which in turn indicates glaciers existed on Greenland 'about 20 million years earlier than previously documented, at a time when temperatures and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations were substantially higher' than they are today." Emphasis again mine.
One of these has to be correct, and the other false; that's a difference of like 20 million years or so. So, let's see which, shall we?
Let's start with the dating of the PETM. Googling it up, it seems it was 58-54 MYA.
Excuse me? I thought the scientists were studying "extensive ice-rafted sedimentary debris... deposited in the Norwegian-Greenland Sea roughly 30 to 38 million years ago." What precisely does this have to do with the PETM 15-20 million years earlier? To put this into perspective, it's warmer now than it's been since before the start of the current ice age- and 10,000 years ago we were in the midst of the Wurm (or Wisconsin, choose your continent) glaciation, only the latest of the glaciations of this ice age. What the hell does what was happening 20 million years later (that's 200 times as long a period) have to do with anything?
See, here's the problem: how many
faux pas can you dig up from
Nature or
Science? Not many. But every single time I go digging into this stuff on Heartland, or the National Center for Public Policy Research, I find tripe like this.
But I'm not done. Let's make sure we find the incest, shall we?
Here we go.
Here's another one. And in case you didn't notice, that one also involves
these guys, who get money from a bunch of organizations that you're going to get very familiar with in just a few short sentences, according to
these guys. Now, if we go check out the Heartland Institute, we get
this list. In the first ten donors, listed by time of donation, how many of the same ones do you find in both? But we're not done yet. How about
these guys? Now it's gonna get juicy. I mean, juicy.
Here we go. Tom Delay. Jack Abramoff. Whoopsie. And let's not forget to
check their donors, too.
Oh, and let's not forget
this reference, right? Right? That's GOTTA be the killer one, right? I mean, the other one goes over to this Heartland Institute, and the threads just come back to
here, right? So this just HAS to be different.
Oops. They've just referenced THEMSELVES AS THE SOURCE, like it's from A DIFFERENT SITE OR SOURCE OR SOMETHING. Hell, this ain't even incest, it's masturbation!
Now, we've got a list of about ten or fifteen organizations to follow around and see what they're putting money into (along with Tom Delay and Jack Abramoff). I guarantee you, that is a google that will open your eyes. You won't have any questions about this any more.
The money all comes from a small, elite group of foundations that are funding neocon propaganda.
You can read about this here. And if that don't get it across, then you're hopeless.
Tell me, do I need to take this further? Or are you beginning to get the idea here?
