SEPP Responds to Heartland Accusations
Timothy Birdnow
Dr. S. Fred Singer has been personally implicated by the NY Times and Christian Science Moniter as recipient of money from the Heartland Institute in their supposed attack on climate science (the core of the prosecution's evidence being a fake document released with some ancillary stolen documents from Heartland) and Ken Haapla at the Science and Environment Policy Project replies:
The Heartland Flap: According to a Heartland press release a person, unknown, used false pretenses to obtain confidential Heartland records. These were quickly posted on some web sites along with an apparently false document of a strategic plan by Heartland to address climate science. Immediately, alarmist web sites went viral. This was proof of a conspiracy to challenge climate science, as alarmists define it. Once dependable newspapers, such as the New York Times and the Christian Science Monitor immediately trumpeted the news.
The Christian Science Monitor falsely claimed that the Charles C. Koch Foundation was undermining climate science. However, the Koch Foundation stated its donations to Heartland were for health care. The Monitor story avoided the fact that there were no major contributions from oil companies, but it linked to stories such as: "Are climate-change deniers guilty of treason?"
The reports stated that Heartland was paying three scientists a total of $18,267, and some expenses, per month, or $219,204 per year, for work on the reports of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). The NIPCC reports include reviews of published scientific articles that are systematically ignored by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
It never occurred to the reporters and the editors of the newspapers that $219,204 per year is an insignificant amount when countering big science, which is a big business. It is peanuts to the environmental industry that promotes global warming alarmism as well. For example, for FY 2011 the National Resources Defense Council spent $105 Million and paid its president in excess of $300,000.
http://www.nrdc.org/about/NRDC_auditedfinanci...
What is most disturbing about this flap is the dogmatic attitude of many reporters and editors to those who challenge the reports of the IPCC. Without evidence, they declare those who challenge the IPCC are attacking climate science, which is not the case. Climate science, as expressed by the IPCC, is totally inadequate and needs to be improved, significantly. Contrary to what is commonly believed there is no solid physical evidence that changes in carbon dioxide are the primary cause of changes in the earth's climate.
A note on Fred Singer: Singer was identified as receiving $5000 per month plus up to $1000 for expenses. The report is wrong! The moneys went to SEPP. Singer is the President of SEPP and is the principal founder of NIPCC. He receives no salary. All the moneys to SEPP are used in educational activities and for research, including challenging the IPCC. His latest research includes the IPCC's failure to adequately account for the chaotic nature of the IPCC models, and questions regarding the reported surface temperatures from 1979 to the super El Niño year of 1998. The surface data are inconsistent with atmospheric temperatures.
Number of the Week: $24,700 Million (rough estimate): In May 2011, the General Accountability Office (GAO) reported that for the Fiscal Year 2010, that ended September 30, 2010, the US government allocated $8,771 Million for Climate Change Funding, of which $2,122 Million went to the category called climate science. This did not include the $26,140 Million of funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (stimulus bill) which was allocated generally over three years, but was not broken out by year. The figure also did not include the $7,230 Million allocated as tax credits for FY 2010. These are classified as tax expenditures.
Assuming that only one-third of the funds from the stimulus bill were spent in FY 2010, the funding for climate change (including tax credits, etc) by the Federal government in FY 2010 roughly totals $24,700 Million. Putting it differently, Federal government expenditures in 5 minutes during FY 2010 were greater than Heartland's annual expenditures for the three co-authors of the NIPPC reports who dare to present reports challenging the scientific basis used to justify the expenditures.
No wonder those who defend the orthodoxy are so outraged with Heartland. With a total budget of $4.6 million for all activities in 2011, Heartland is among the few organizations that have raised serious scientific objections to the global warming express and its massive expenditures. It frightens the defenders of the orthodoxy that the American taxpayers may realize that they are getting an extremely poor return for these enormous expenditures. The 2011 Heartland total budget is less than 0.02% of the Federal government expenditures on climate change in FY 2010. Yet, for that paltry sum, the science produced by NIPCC and many independent contributors present the vital balance to the biased science of the IPCC.
http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/318556.pdf...
Dr. S. Fred Singer has been personally implicated by the NY Times and Christian Science Moniter as recipient of money from the Heartland Institute in their supposed attack on climate science (the core of the prosecution's evidence being a fake document released with some ancillary stolen documents from Heartland) and Ken Haapla at the Science and Environment Policy Project replies:
The Heartland Flap: According to a Heartland press release a person, unknown, used false pretenses to obtain confidential Heartland records. These were quickly posted on some web sites along with an apparently false document of a strategic plan by Heartland to address climate science. Immediately, alarmist web sites went viral. This was proof of a conspiracy to challenge climate science, as alarmists define it. Once dependable newspapers, such as the New York Times and the Christian Science Monitor immediately trumpeted the news.
The Christian Science Monitor falsely claimed that the Charles C. Koch Foundation was undermining climate science. However, the Koch Foundation stated its donations to Heartland were for health care. The Monitor story avoided the fact that there were no major contributions from oil companies, but it linked to stories such as: "Are climate-change deniers guilty of treason?"
The reports stated that Heartland was paying three scientists a total of $18,267, and some expenses, per month, or $219,204 per year, for work on the reports of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). The NIPCC reports include reviews of published scientific articles that are systematically ignored by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
It never occurred to the reporters and the editors of the newspapers that $219,204 per year is an insignificant amount when countering big science, which is a big business. It is peanuts to the environmental industry that promotes global warming alarmism as well. For example, for FY 2011 the National Resources Defense Council spent $105 Million and paid its president in excess of $300,000.
http://www.nrdc.org/about/NRDC_auditedfinanci...
What is most disturbing about this flap is the dogmatic attitude of many reporters and editors to those who challenge the reports of the IPCC. Without evidence, they declare those who challenge the IPCC are attacking climate science, which is not the case. Climate science, as expressed by the IPCC, is totally inadequate and needs to be improved, significantly. Contrary to what is commonly believed there is no solid physical evidence that changes in carbon dioxide are the primary cause of changes in the earth's climate.
A note on Fred Singer: Singer was identified as receiving $5000 per month plus up to $1000 for expenses. The report is wrong! The moneys went to SEPP. Singer is the President of SEPP and is the principal founder of NIPCC. He receives no salary. All the moneys to SEPP are used in educational activities and for research, including challenging the IPCC. His latest research includes the IPCC's failure to adequately account for the chaotic nature of the IPCC models, and questions regarding the reported surface temperatures from 1979 to the super El Niño year of 1998. The surface data are inconsistent with atmospheric temperatures.
Number of the Week: $24,700 Million (rough estimate): In May 2011, the General Accountability Office (GAO) reported that for the Fiscal Year 2010, that ended September 30, 2010, the US government allocated $8,771 Million for Climate Change Funding, of which $2,122 Million went to the category called climate science. This did not include the $26,140 Million of funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (stimulus bill) which was allocated generally over three years, but was not broken out by year. The figure also did not include the $7,230 Million allocated as tax credits for FY 2010. These are classified as tax expenditures.
Assuming that only one-third of the funds from the stimulus bill were spent in FY 2010, the funding for climate change (including tax credits, etc) by the Federal government in FY 2010 roughly totals $24,700 Million. Putting it differently, Federal government expenditures in 5 minutes during FY 2010 were greater than Heartland's annual expenditures for the three co-authors of the NIPPC reports who dare to present reports challenging the scientific basis used to justify the expenditures.
No wonder those who defend the orthodoxy are so outraged with Heartland. With a total budget of $4.6 million for all activities in 2011, Heartland is among the few organizations that have raised serious scientific objections to the global warming express and its massive expenditures. It frightens the defenders of the orthodoxy that the American taxpayers may realize that they are getting an extremely poor return for these enormous expenditures. The 2011 Heartland total budget is less than 0.02% of the Federal government expenditures on climate change in FY 2010. Yet, for that paltry sum, the science produced by NIPCC and many independent contributors present the vital balance to the biased science of the IPCC.
http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/318556.pdf...
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 5:13 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home