Warmist Scott Mandia Says Peter Gleick Was Saving The Children!

For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com

Premium Left blogad

Left Blog Ad

Permalinks

Warmist Scott Mandia Says Peter Gleick Was Saving The Children!

Written By : William Teach

Gotta love publicly funded radio. Over at 89.3, Southern Calibankrupt’s public radio station, which has “no rant, no spin” as its slogan, we learn

Last week we brought you the story of several documents that were leaked from The Heartland Institute regarding their plans to push an anti-climate change agenda in public schools. Heartland is an organization based in Chicago that is a consistent voice against the climate science and global warming.

Yup, no spin, no rant. You Climate Realists simply hate the climate or something, and want to make kids believe that climate is caused by little green men from Saturn.

And it appears many of his colleagues agree with him. From the Union of Concerned Scientists to the National Center on Science Education, a group that Gleick was about to take a board post on, all condemn his methods while insisting that the real bad guys here are still Heartland for attempting to undermine climate change education. Others say Gleick’s leaking of the Heartland documents has finally exposed the groups methods and motives and least he had the guts to take responsibility for this actions.

Except, the main document appears to be a complete fake. But, yes, Heartland would like to see real science taught in schools, and that there are more than 1 side to the debate. You know, science. And then we get to the guests, which includes

Scott Mandia, Professor of Physical Sciences, Suffolk County Community College; co-founder of the Climate Science Rapid Response Team, a group that connects climate scientists to lawmakers and the media.

Said rapid response team is purely political in nature. If the science could stand on its own, there would be no need. But, anyhow, here’s what he had to say, audio at the link, short transcript via Tom Nelson

At the 2:30 mark of the audio, Mandia says: “…putting on my “dad hat”…[Gleick's] potentially saving my children and your children and people in the audience because it’s clear Heartland has had a history of subverting science education and they were up to it again. So for all the parents out there, this was something that is going to benefit them.”

See? Theft, ethical violations, misrepresentation, probably falsifying documents, they’re all good, because Gleick was saving kids from …….well, learning science.

BTW, Heartland isn’t kidding around: they’ve apparently had talks with the FBI.

JoeBritton

Let’s have the full story:

“Heartland bills itself as “the marketing arm of the free-market movement.” In February of 2012, internal strategy and funding documents detailing the Heartland Institutes campaign of global warming denial were released to DeSmogBlog. The documents included strategies for raising funds from Koch brothers foundations, as well as a plan to create school curriculums that cast doubt on global warming science. Documents and analysis are available at desmogblog.com.”

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41

One of Heartland’s major funding sources is Exxon Mobil and other oil industry giants. Can we really accept Heartland as an institute interested in science (truth)?

BinDSM

Can we really trust ‘scientists’ funded by the government or Greenpeace? Care to present an argument in support of GW that actually relies on science and not ad hominem against a research group? Or is that all you have to defend Gleick’s illegal activities?

JoeBritton

So now the government is funding a conspiracy? Would that be the National Science Foundation? Some links would help us to get to the bottom of it.

BinDSM

Logic isn’t your strong suit is it. Politicians and the public have been sold a line from the beginning. The science never having been complete(we literally went from a new ice age to global warming in about 2 years time based on the same data!!) 25 years later we have seen no significant changes in global climate. But the Alarmists continue to take tax dollars to research(lie about) the effects of man on global temps. It’s not a conspiracy it’s fact. But then you have problems with reality I see.

JoeBritton

“25 years later we have seen no significant changes in global climate.”

Strange that other climate change deniers don’t deny that global temps have increased, but only that it is due to natural processes and is not anthropogenic, i.e., caused by CO2 from greenhouse gases released by humans. In fact, I even recall a flatulance article by Teach that put down the very idea.

Catch up friend.
jasamc

Whoooooo, seriously bad at reading. Let me help you…

“no SIGNIFICANT changes” means that there have been changes, just not that significant.

So, funny enough, BinDSM is saying the same thing as the others.

I’d tell you to catch up yourself, but you’d have to go look that phrase up to understand it.
Jfisher17

So Gleick steals, lies, commits fraud or whatever it turns out to be, right after Heartland invited him to a debate, which he refused. Don’t you remember Copernicus, Newton and the boys doing this way back when they were trying to prove their theories?
BinDSM

Joe you are incapable of reading simple English aren’t you?

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Meh, alarmist scientists get huge grants from petrochemical companies, too – far larger than little organizations like Heartland do, actually. Funding isn’t the problem, its results. If you’re funded by mother Theresa and bunny rabbits but your science is trash, who cares who paid the bills?

BinDSM

Well Joe can’t see past the real issue, the science sucks period!

http://www.thepiratescove.us/ William_Teach

Except, Warmists are not practicing science, they’re practicing politics and fascism. None of them follow the scientific method. It’s more akin to what Madam Zelda does at the circus. In real world practice, all their models and hypotheses fail.

And, yeah, why should we trust Warmists, who have an obvious agenda? Oh, and just so you know, “environmental” groups take money from oil and coal companies, too.

I’ll believe in AGW when all you Believers stop using anything that relies on fossil fuels and coal.

JoeBritton

“None of them follow the scientific method.”

Want to elaborate a little on what you mean by scientific method, especially in the present context of the study of naturalistic phenomenon?

BinDSM

Study of anything which can be measured is science DUMBASS, unless you think genetics, biology, anthropology, geology, and medicine aren’t sciences.

And the scientific method requires that in order for a theory to be even remotely valid one must be able to replicate an event in a controlled environment and get the same result every time. So far no has been able to even come close to replicating ANY part of climate.

JoeBritton

We have been through this before, the inability to provide “controlled environments” in which to conduct experiments in this area that would permit replication. The Earth is not a laboratory that allows such control.

So perhaps it is you and Teach who don’t understand that controlled experiments are not possible in climate change research. Hence your circular skepticism. But there are lab experiments one can do, only they do not directly generalize to natural phenomena, but they do not contradict climate change and even support it indirectly.
JoeBritton

So you want controlled laboratory science that is replicable. Here’s an experiment I posted before, which HS students can do, even you. Take to flasks stoppered with thermometers. Sit them on black paper. Fill one with pure CO2 and the other with natural air (containing a low amount of CO2). Sit them in sunlight. Now just record the Temps of the air in each flask over time. Do I have to tell you what the result will be?

Only a dumbass would deny what he sees, if you will excuse the expression.
jasamc

Damn, that’s a good experiment you have there. Well, except for the fact that we have plants in our ecosystem that change the amount of CO2 in the air. Which means that the air will NEVER be pure CO2, which means that your experiment is invalid.

Oh, never mind, it’s not a good experiment after all.
BinDSM

That scientists haven’t recreated a climate to experiment in is part of their problem! But it’s THEIR problem, they MUST do this to actually be able to PROVE their theory, that’s what science is all about!

Joe your little experiment seriously fails the reality test. The bottle experiment you’re proposing is a CLOSED system. The earth’s atmosphere isn’t CLOSED, you retard.

http://www.thepiratescove.us/ William_Teach

The very fact that you even have to ask what the hell the scientific method is proves that you have no clue what science is.

mightysamurai

A better question might be, can we really accept a website called exxonsecrets.org as a source of truth.

Jfisher17

One of the final nails in the GW coffin? Go to blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdel (of 2-26-12). Where MIT professor Richard Lindzen shoots down the alarmists in flames.