Select to expand quoteParadox said..
holy guacamole said..
Did I say the Heartland Institute are the anti- Christ?
No.
I said they spent the better part of their first 20 years spreading misinformation and lies about the hazards of smoking.
They lost that battle fair and square so they moved onto climate change in 2008.
Science has a lot to do with it in fact. Science and medicine.
Mate, I think you've exposed yourself as a bit of a poor researcher by trying to defend the Heartland Institute.
At least do some research before you spout further and embarrass yourself anymore.
My issue with research is that I can't find anything that supports your allegations, and it seem you are having the same issue.....but still you make the statements, over and over and over. Saying them more often doesn't make them true you know.
They are your allegations, it's your burden to support them.
Select to expand quoteNotWal said..
^ You don't accept Wikipedia?
Good god no. You know it's written by unqualified volunteers and it's content is voted on right?
Highly unreliable for anything but the most mundane non-politicized subjects because it's content is easily manipulated by a committed group of anyone.....
I would agree with your statement regarding Wikipedia.
I don't need Wikipedia. History doesn't need Wikipedia.
Paradox, your assertion that the only thing the Heartland Institute did for tobacco companies was lobby against tax reforms is a trifle ignorant.
Please, do some research.
You could start here, with this Op-ed by the Heartland Institute President, where amongst other lies he claims that second hand smoke doesn't harm others and questioning the "science". Funny how that has quite a ring top it with climate change denial now....
What you'll find is that none of the op-Ed's and press releases exist on the HI website anymore BECAUSE THEY'RE TOO EMBARRASSING and scientifically and medically wrong.
Nothing can delete the newspaper articles easily retrievable with some good old proper research though.
Here's the HI president denying all sorts of medically proven stuff:
www.scribd.com/document/220221584/Joe-Bast-op-ed-on-smoking
And here's the same bloke denying he wrote that shiiite.
www.prwatch.org/news/2014/05/12464/heartland-institute-reluctantly-stands-denial-cigarette-smoking-risks
Does this shiiitcake of yours need some icing paradox? Of course. Here's a letter asking Phillip Morris for money.
www.scribd.com/document/220221575/Joe-Bast-s-bottom-line
Select to expand quoteParadox said..NotWal said..
^ You don't accept Wikipedia?
Good god no. You know it's written by unqualified volunteers and it's content is voted on right?
Highly unreliable for anything but the most mundane non-politicized subjects because it's content is easily manipulated by a committed group of anyone.....
you're dying in a ditch trying to protect the reputation of the Heartland Institute??????
If that's the way you want it.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
I would agree with your statement regarding Wikipedia.
I don't need Wikipedia. History doesn't need Wikipedia.
Paradox, your assertion that the only thing the Heartland Institute did for tobacco companies was lobby against tax reforms is a trifle ignorant.
Please, do some research.
You could start here, with this Op-ed by the Heartland Institute President, where amongst other lies he claims that second hand smoke doesn't harm others and questioning the "science". Funny how that has quite a ring top it with climate change denial now....
What you'll find is that none of the op-Ed's and press releases exist on the HI website anymore BECAUSE THEY'RE TOO EMBARRASSING and scientifically and medically wrong.
Nothing can delete the newspaper articles easily retrievable with some good old proper research though.
Here's the HI president denying all sorts of medically proven stuff:
www.scribd.com/document/220221584/Joe-Bast-op-ed-on-smoking
And here's the same bloke denying he wrote that shiiite.
www.prwatch.org/news/2014/05/12464/heartland-institute-reluctantly-stands-denial-cigarette-smoking-risks
Does this shiiitcake of yours need some icing paradox? Of course. Here's a letter asking Phillip Morris for money.
www.scribd.com/document/220221575/Joe-Bast-s-bottom-line
Ok I've read all of them. And to be clear, I am not asserting anything in regard to Heartland, I am just asking you to backup your claims.
Here is what it's contains:
1) Is an article from a Mr Bast from Heartland. In it Mr Bast pointed out that the US EPA claimed 3000 deaths from second hand smoking in 1997 and weighed that claim against the World Health Organisations stance that the impacts from second hand smoking were "either non existant or too small to be measured at any meaningful level" he then references a number of articles where the EPA's own scientists call out the EPA for "supressing research that does not fit a political agenda" I believe the context is in relation to calling out the EPA for exaggerating figures and also challenging the justification for increasing the tax on tabacco to match the cost of health issues / deaths.
He also goes onto say that cigarette executives should be prosecuted if they crossed the line between promotion and fraud and mentions that the reason suits against cigarette companies fail is becuase smokers are always proven to have been fully aware of the risks of smoking.
2) Seems to be a political journal article that links 1 above and seems to take a lot of licence about what it actually says. No facts available here.
3) is a letter to Phillip Morris asking for a donation to keep Heartland afloat and highlighting that Heartland has assisted in thier sales. Presumable by keeping prices down through thier work on the Tabacco Tax.
Some of your statements: "a lobby group that worked for decades to discredit the links between smoking and disease. Exxon Mobil is one of their biggest donors...." and
"This is a group of industrialists who have long questioned the link between smoking and cancer and heart disease and take a large part of their donations from Exxon Mobil. The Heartland Institute's core objective IS to spin misinformation and spread doubt."
The Heartland Institute challenged the medical evidence that smoking caused all manner of diseases including working DIRECTLY with Phillip Morris. If you don't know how to use Google, try the local library.
Mate, good try but im not getting any sort of match between what you are saying and your supporting evidence. Exept for the taking money from Philip Morris. Frankly I actually believed they WORKED for them. Apparently not if they were begging them for donations. Thanks for clearing that up.
If you want to say they are morally bankrupt for taking money from a tabacco company (a legitimate business that even now still operates legally), by all means. Anything else seems a little wide of the mark so far.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..NotWal said..
^ You don't accept Wikipedia?
Good god no. You know it's written by unqualified volunteers and it's content is voted on right?
Highly unreliable for anything but the most mundane non-politicized subjects because it's content is easily manipulated by a committed group of anyone.....
You don't know what you're missing.
It's a good starting point.
They point to lots of interesting titbits that can be confirmed by your sweet self if you have a mind to.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute
Select to expand quotelog man said..
you're dying in a ditch trying to protect the reputation of the Heartland Institute??????
If that's the way you want it.
Nope, i'm not protecting anyones reputation or making any assertions regarding Heartland except for the fact I have not seen or read anything that appears to be false or non factual from them.
I certainly have not read all that much of thier content, so was very interested in the veracity of the claims regarding them. Seems to me the claims are a little (or maybe significantly) overblown and based on a desire to discredit through distorting truth rather than facts, but I do have an open mind.
Perhaps you can do better in your backup than HG?? So far we have:
They are/were a political lobby group
They survive from donations, inlcuding asking Philip Morris for $30,000 and a table at thier next fundraiser in 1998.
They worked on behalf of smokers and the tabacco industry on matters relating to tabacco tax in the US.
They seem to be able to stick to truth and facts (what has been presented so far anyway)
In my experience if any organisation or movement resorts to smear campaigns or ad hominem attacks, then it is usually because they fear the message or information being presented. There is no need to discredit anyone if thier science and facts don't stand up.
Select to expand quoteNotWal said..
You don't know what you're missing.
It's a good starting point.
They point to lots of interesting titbits that can be confirmed by your sweet self if you have a mind to.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute
Yeah thanks, but I am wasting too much time waiting for others to provide some actual evidence as it is without having to go and backup somone else's assertions/claims by trolling through every website posted sifting out fact from opinion.
The concept is pretty simple, if you make a statement and you are called out on it, then back it up with facts, not opinion articles. If the wiki article is half way decent and accurate it will link proof. Like real proof, not just some political news article that makes claims that can't actually be found in the reference documents.
Mind you, I don't know why I would expect that from a watersports forum when even NASA Climate can't manage to do it....
How deep do you want to dig this shiiiithole defending the indefensible paradox?
Honestly.
Here's what Joe Bast, Director of the Heartland Institute said in 1998. It's so astonishing to read today with what the medical profession knows about smoking:
"Smoking in Moderation
"A fourth lie is that even moderate smoking is deadly. Several experts (including two who are very anti-smoking) have told me that smoking fewer than seven cigarettes a day does not raise a smoker's risk of lung cancer. When have you ever seen that fact reported in a newspaper or admitted by a public health official?
"Exposure to small amounts of a toxic substance is often benign because the human body has a natural ability to repair itself. Our bodies shed and create anew millions of cells every day, in the process repairing much of the damage done by exposure to toxins and other kinds of wear and tear. The result is thresholds of exposure to potentially harmful substances below which there is no irreversible damage.
"The fact that smoking in moderation has few, if any, adverse health effects has astounding importance in the tobacco debate. Virtually any product (water, salt, and vitamins come to mind), if used in excess, is a health hazard....."
How can any rational person read this and STILL defend these people and anyone who chooses to associate with them?
Oh he spoke to experts...several of them!
what's the heartlands interest in smoking got to do with this Naomi or her message. Just an attempt by bono and loggy to smear her for a lack of any substance they have to tackle the argument head on. Its their standard M.O.
She's backed by and funded by them.
She gives talks under their banner.
She joined the Heartland Institute's Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy in February 2020.
The Heartland Institute peddles misinformation for tobacco and petrochemical companies.
Now they're peddling misinformation about climate change.
She's smearing herself.
Seibt makes some interesting points but none of them are scientific or informed by years of relevant in depth training or experience in the field of climate science. She basically says what climate change deniers need to hear - excuses.
How can we take her seriously when she calls years of rigorous science "games". That's smearing.
I think the only people who will take her seriously are anthropogenic climate change deniers.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
How deep do you want to dig this shiiiithole defending the indefensible paradox?
Honestly.
Here's what Joe Bast, Director of the Heartland Institute said in 1998. It's so astonishing to read today with what the medical profession knows about smoking:
"Smoking in Moderation
"A fourth lie is that even moderate smoking is deadly. Several experts (including two who are very anti-smoking) have told me that smoking fewer than seven cigarettes a day does not raise a smoker's risk of lung cancer. When have you ever seen that fact reported in a newspaper or admitted by a public health official?
"Exposure to small amounts of a toxic substance is often benign because the human body has a natural ability to repair itself. Our bodies shed and create anew millions of cells every day, in the process repairing much of the damage done by exposure to toxins and other kinds of wear and tear. The result is thresholds of exposure to potentially harmful substances below which there is no irreversible damage.
"The fact that smoking in moderation has few, if any, adverse health effects has astounding importance in the tobacco debate. Virtually any product (water, salt, and vitamins come to mind), if used in excess, is a health hazard....."
How can any rational person read this and STILL defend these people and anyone who chooses to associate with them?
Oh he spoke to experts...several of them!
Again, I am not defending anything, just looking into your statements and thier justifications. So lets look at this.
I do know the second statement is reasonably correct, I think that is supported. I'm not a medical expert so I have no idea if the first one is true or not. Do you??? Did he reference the experts? Have you actually checked to see if what he said had basis or are you just assuming that because we all know smoking is bad for you then he must be wrong???
Facts and details are important, blindly following popular opinion doesn't make you right.
I did a quick google search on the topic and found this in a 2006 journal paper on smoking and lung cancer, took 2 mins. First paper I found so I have not looked further. 
You might note that all the data points start at 7 cigarettes per day....statistically this tells us that they did not get any data points below 7, hence the drop to zero. This would correlate to validate his comments.
Again I am not even remotely qualified to comment on if this is correct, but it seems his comments in 1998 at least had some truth to them in a study 8 years later??? Maybe the experts he spoke to had this data???
So, he is guilty of going against the prevailing/popular opinion, but it appears what he said may be true.
I am not digging the hole HG, it's you that keeps going down this rabbit hole and then being spat back out again....
Bootstrap you can keep making excuses for tobacco lobbyists all day.....
"Heartland has devoted considerable attention to defending tobacco". Joe Bast, Director. Oh dear....
I note you've quietly accepted Seibt is a paid spokesperson of Heartland....
Regarding AGW, the prevailing science of the day supports the theory that human activity is driving the bulk of change since the 1950's. Yes, it does.
Seibt refers to this science as "games". She claims climate change models are games, but in reality just about all science is modelling of something. It's call the Experimental Method and an experiment is a model.
I can only imagine she makes such fundamental errors because she's an young, unqualified paid shill who's "done her own research" and knows better than every expert on the planet (not in the pocket of fossil fuel corporations of course).
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
Bootstrap you can keep making excuses for tobacco lobbyists all day.....
"Heartland has devoted considerable attention to defending tobacco". Joe Bast. Oh dear....
I note you've finally quietly accepted she is a paid spokesperson of Heartland....
Regarding AGW, the prevailing science of the day supports the theory that human activity is driving the bulk of change since the 1950's. Yes, it does.
Seibt refers to this science as "games". She claims climate change models are games, but in reality just about all science is modelling of something. It's call the Experimental Method and an experiment is a model.
I can only imagine she makes such fundamental errors because she's an unqualified paid shill who's "done her own research" and knows better than every expert on the planet (not in the pocket of fossil fuel corporations of course).
OK, so from that I assume you are withdrawing all your previous statements as unsupported.
I also have no issue with your new statement that Heartland defended tabacco growers and smokers on taxation policy. I think thats on thier website isn't it??
I have clearly said before that Naomi is promoting her association with Heartland, so why would I deny that association? I've also said she is just an unqualified teenager. No arguments there either.
I would like to see your backup that "the prevailing science of the day supports the theory that human activity is driving the bulk of change since the 1950's" The level of contribution of AGW is a hotly debated topic.
Even our friends at Skeptical Science avoid referencing a % contribution, they merely refer to the consusus that we are contributing to some degree.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..OK, so from that I assume you are withdrawing all your previous statements as unsupported.holy guacamole said..
Bootstrap you can keep making excuses for tobacco lobbyists all day.....
"Heartland has devoted considerable attention to defending tobacco". Joe Bast. Oh dear....
I note you've finally quietly accepted she is a paid spokesperson of Heartland....
Regarding AGW, the prevailing science of the day supports the theory that human activity is driving the bulk of change since the 1950's. Yes, it does.
Seibt refers to this science as "games". She claims climate change models are games, but in reality just about all science is modelling of something. It's call the Experimental Method and an experiment is a model.
I can only imagine she makes such fundamental errors because she's an unqualified paid shill who's "done her own research" and knows better than every expert on the planet (not in the pocket of fossil fuel corporations of course).
Oh god no....what an odd thing to interpret.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..I would like to see your backup that "the prevailing science of the day supports the theory that human activity is driving the bulk of change since the 1950's" The level of contribution of AGW is a hotly debated topicholy guacamole said.....Regarding AGW, the prevailing science of the day supports the theory that human activity is driving the bulk of change since the 1950's. Yes, it does...
It's only claimed to be "hotly" debated amongst spin merchants, doubt merchants, climate change deniers and fossil fuel lobbyists. That's the key to sewing doubt - claim that there's a debate.
So, does the CSIRO qualify as backup or are you, a layperson to be trusted over them?
www.csiro.au/en/Research/OandA/Areas/Oceans-and-climate/Climate-change-information
"The international scientific community accepts that increases in greenhouse gases due to human activity have been the dominant cause of observed global warming since the mid-20th century. Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system."
Yeah it'd be better if she kept her backers and associations under covers and insisted that her childhood was stolen and she can see CO2...
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..Paradox said..I would like to see your backup that "the prevailing science of the day supports the theory that human activity is driving the bulk of change since the 1950's" The level of contribution of AGW is a hotly debated topicholy guacamole said.....Regarding AGW, the prevailing science of the day supports the theory that human activity is driving the bulk of change since the 1950's. Yes, it does...
It's only claimed to be "hotly" debated amongst spin merchants, doubt merchants, climate change deniers and fossil fuel lobbyists. That's the key to sewing doubt - claim that there's a debate.
So, does the CSIRO qualify as backup or are you, a layperson to be trusted over them?
www.csiro.au/en/Research/OandA/Areas/Oceans-and-climate/Climate-change-information
"The international scientific community accepts that increases in greenhouse gases due to human activity have been the dominant cause of observed global warming since the mid-20th century. Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system."
There's no source for that statement
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..holy guacamole said..Paradox said..I would like to see your backup that "the prevailing science of the day supports the theory that human activity is driving the bulk of change since the 1950's" The level of contribution of AGW is a hotly debated topicholy guacamole said.....Regarding AGW, the prevailing science of the day supports the theory that human activity is driving the bulk of change since the 1950's. Yes, it does...
It's only claimed to be "hotly" debated amongst spin merchants, doubt merchants, climate change deniers and fossil fuel lobbyists. That's the key to sewing doubt - claim that there's a debate.
So, does the CSIRO qualify as backup or are you, a layperson to be trusted over them?
www.csiro.au/en/Research/OandA/Areas/Oceans-and-climate/Climate-change-information
"The international scientific community accepts that increases in greenhouse gases due to human activity have been the dominant cause of observed global warming since the mid-20th century. Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system."
There's no source for that statement
Yes you should really give a reference if you make a statement like that. Even a wikipedia reference is better than no reference at all.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..There's no source for that statement holy guacamole said..Paradox said..I would like to see your backup that "the prevailing science of the day supports the theory that human activity is driving the bulk of change since the 1950's" The level of contribution of AGW is a hotly debated topicholy guacamole said.....Regarding AGW, the prevailing science of the day supports the theory that human activity is driving the bulk of change since the 1950's. Yes, it does...
It's only claimed to be "hotly" debated amongst spin merchants, doubt merchants, climate change deniers and fossil fuel lobbyists. That's the key to sewing doubt - claim that there's a debate.
So, does the CSIRO qualify as backup or are you, a layperson to be trusted over them?
www.csiro.au/en/Research/OandA/Areas/Oceans-and-climate/Climate-change-information
"The international scientific community accepts that increases in greenhouse gases due to human activity have been the dominant cause of observed global warming since the mid-20th century. Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system."
I did. Immediately above it. It's a little organisation called the CSIRO.....clearly you didn't bother to read the link or grasp the point of the post at all...but never mind...
Everyone knows the CSIRO are in on the One World Government plan right!
So... ?
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..Kamikuza said..There's no source for that statement holy guacamole said..Paradox said..I would like to see your backup that "the prevailing science of the day supports the theory that human activity is driving the bulk of change since the 1950's" The level of contribution of AGW is a hotly debated topicholy guacamole said.....Regarding AGW, the prevailing science of the day supports the theory that human activity is driving the bulk of change since the 1950's. Yes, it does...
It's only claimed to be "hotly" debated amongst spin merchants, doubt merchants, climate change deniers and fossil fuel lobbyists. That's the key to sewing doubt - claim that there's a debate.
So, does the CSIRO qualify as backup or are you, a layperson to be trusted over them?
www.csiro.au/en/Research/OandA/Areas/Oceans-and-climate/Climate-change-information
"The international scientific community accepts that increases in greenhouse gases due to human activity have been the dominant cause of observed global warming since the mid-20th century. Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system."
I did. Immediately above it. It's a little organisation called the CSIRO.....clearly you didn't bother to read the link or grasp the point of the post at all...but never mind...
Everyone knows the CSIRO are in on the One World Government plan right!
So... ?
Just about every publication released from under the CSIRO banner will have a copy. or at least an abstract on the internet. Make it a bit easier for us. Which one in particular were you thinking of?
Errr, the one in the link....to an abstract....on the internet....immediately above the statement quote and after my summary...how much easier does it need to be?
Here, so you don't have to scroll a few posts. The short video is not a bad summary, but I'm sure you'll be interested in the words too.
www.csiro.au/en/Research/OandA/Areas/Oceans-and-climate/Climate-change-information
Yes my apologies, thank you, I can see it now. Straight from the horse's mouth.
"The international scientific community accepts that increases in greenhouse gases due to human activity have been the dominant cause of observed global warming since the mid-20th century. "
www.csiro.au/en/Research/OandA/Areas/Oceans-and-climate/Climate-change-information?utm_source=seabreeze.com.au
(Although CSIRO, being ever careful with how they phrase stuff, isn't claiming that they've necessarily or independently come to the same conclusion)
No problem Ian. Easy to do if you're glossing over things...
So I'm curious, are you going to now pull paradox up every time he claims he knows better than highly reputable institutions like the CSIRO, or are you instead going to continue to devote your energies in finding omissions in the accepted knowledge I am presenting?
Not talking about skepticism here...because if the CSIRO was sceptical about the science they wouldn't make statements like that and the Australian Government would back it up with a dedicated webpage to similar effect. Here:
www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/en/
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
No problem Ian. Easy to do if you're glossing over things...
So I'm curious, are you going to now pull paradox up every time he claims he knows better than highly reputable institutions like the CSIRO, or are you instead going to continue to devote your energies in finding omissions in the accepted knowledge I am presenting?
Not talking about skepticism here...because if the CSIRO was sceptical about the science they wouldn't make statements like that and the Australian Government would back it up with a dedicated webpage to similar effect. Here:
www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/en/
Every time? Or are you going back years? No Paradox, like CSIRO, is usually pretty careful as to how he phrases things. Separating fact from as=yet=unproven possibilities. Maybe some references to researchers who consider natural variation to be in the order of 50% of it all would be handy. Paradox?
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
I did. Immediately above it. It's a little organisation called the CSIRO.....clearly you didn't bother to read the link or grasp the point of the post at all...but never mind...
Everyone knows the CSIRO are in on the One World Government plan right!
So... ?
So that's one of them Guardian sources where they just quote their own articles? How does CSIRO know that "the international scientific community" etc etc. accepts that? Where's their source for THAT comment?
I'm betting it the Cook paper 
but who can tell, when there's no source. I like Wikipedia better for that reason.
You guys crack me up. Of course, the CSIRO is a pawn of The Guardian. How could I have missed that one.
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..So that's one of them Guardian sources where they just quote their own articles? How does CSIRO know that "the international scientific community" etc etc. accepts that? Where's their source for THAT comment?holy guacamole said..
I did. Immediately above it. It's a little organisation called the CSIRO.....clearly you didn't bother to read the link or grasp the point of the post at all...but never mind...
I'm betting it the Cook paper but who can tell, when there's no source. I like Wikipedia better for that reason.
You guys crack me up. Of course, the CSIRO is a pawn of The Guardian. How could I have missed that one.
What would they know about science?
Taking a step back, what on earth are you deniers so afraid of? Afraid of the future? Afraid of technology? Afraid of a cleaner planet? Afraid of cheaper energy? Afraid of almost free energy?
What's your problem?
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
You guys crack me up. Of course, the CSIRO is a pawn of The Guardian. How could I have missed that one.
What would they know about science?
Taking a step back, what on earth are you deniers so afraid of? Afraid of the future? Afraid of technology? Afraid of a cleaner planet? Afraid of cheaper energy? Afraid of almost free energy?
What's your problem?
Oh. Yeah, that's what I meant. I wasn't actually pointing out their extreme lack of proper sources for their statements. #doubleSarcasm
Nothing. No. Hell no. Nope. No, gimme some. Nope but sounds like you are though -- remember your irrational fear of the nuclear power station?
My problem is that your lack of sources = Argument from Authority logical fallacy.
Are you afraid to address that? Cos you keep deflecting...
