Jim Lakely is an articulate informant on warming issues.
I will put up here his short essay of response to an inquiry.
Mr. Lakely works at the Heartland Institute as a manager of public affairs, but is clearly knowledgeable on the warming issues and the science.
Here’s Lakely reponding to a warmer “expert” set of assertions:
I encourage you to review the reports on the Climate Change Reconsidered website and continue to use it as a resource.
For now, I can immediately answer some of these questions.
1. People like you are bought and sold by fossil fuels company
The Heartland Institute, called by The Economist magazine the “world’s leading think tank promoting skepticism about man-caused climate change,” receives almost no funding from any fossil fuel interests. It’s such a pittance it’s hardly even worth mentioning. Exxon stopped contributing to Heartland in 2006 – two years before the first of now nine International Conferences on Climate Change, and before the publication of the first of the Climate Change Reconsidered series in 2008. Not a single dime of corporate money went into any of the Climate Change Reconsidered volumes — which now stand at about 4,000 pages with many more thousands of citations from the peer-reviewed literature. The fact is, many environmental activist groups get funding from energy companies – coal, natural gas, and renewables. But that’s not as important as the strength of the science and the quality of the argument. The environmental activists fail on both counts.
2. Climate “deniers” science is subpar, there have been falsification of data by “deniers” and much of their research not peer review.
This is pure projection. The Climategate email scandal showed how the alarmist side was fudging data. To this day, many scientists – such as the infamous Michael Mann with his hockey stick – will not share their data or the methods they used to come to their results with their computer models. That is not “science,” that is faith-based advocacy. We’re just supposed to trust them because of their positions of authority. Again, no independent scientists are allowed to see their data and try to replicate their results. That is now how any other scientific field operates.
As for peer review, as I noted earlier, the NIPCC reports are filled with thousands of citations from the peer-reviewed literature. Many of those who worked on the reports have also served as reviewers of the UN IPCC reports. I have never heard of any “skeptic” getting caught “falisfying data,” yet alarmists have been caught.
As a side note: the Climategate scandal also revealed that scientists whose research did not toe the line of climate alarmism were blackballed out of peer-reviewed scientific journals. And some editors who allowed non-alarimst papers to be published were drummed out of their positions. It’s quite rich to make the (false) claim that “deniers” have no peer-reviewed articles of their own when you rig the system to keep them out of it.
3. The usual 98% of climatalogist agree man is the real reason behind climate change.
Below is a plethora of links poking holes in that myth.
You Call This Consensus?
The Myth of the 98% Consensus
Analysis: New International Survey of Climate Scientists
IPCC Admits Its Past Reports are Junk
Nobel Laureate Declares Boycott of Top Science Journals
AMS Survey Shows No Consensus on Global Warming
and Willie Soon and Chris Monckton nailed a big part of the issue while refuting Cook et al. in this peer-reviewed article:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11191-013-9647-9
Friends of Science recently published this essay on the subject,
Click to access 97_Consensus_Myth.pdf
Andrew Montford of the Global Warming Policy Foundation produced this commentary on the terrible David Cook pseudo-science report:
Click to access Montford-Consensus.pdf
David Friedman, an economist and law professor who doesn’t often write on the subject and doesn’t seem to have a dog in the fight, wrote this devastating take down of Cook et al.:
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/a-climate-falsehood-you-can-check-for.html
When you collect your $10,000 prize, I hope you will consider a donation to The Heartland Institute.
Let me know if you need any more information, Tom. We’re happy to help, and we’re the world’s best resource for this sort of thing, bar none.
-Jim
Haha. That’s “Lakely”, of course, not Lakey. Typographical errors of my own.
There are many typographical errors in this quote of Jim Lakey. If they are original, I suppose they should stay in. But if not, could they be corrected?
The other thing is that there appear to be some links missing his his “plethora of links”, such as “IPCC Admits Its Past Reports Are Junk”.
I would be interested in seeing what is in those links.
Thank you for all you have done to unravel Climategate.
Since the end of WWII the public has been betrayed by leaders of the scientific community.
The story began in the closing days of WWII when a nuclear geochemist, Dr. Kazuo Kuroda, took secret A-bomb plans from Japan in 1945.
Kuroda became my research mentor in 1960. If you save the following documents, you can use them to decipher the New World Order, “settled science,” “consensus science,” “standard models,” etc., for yourself by:
_ a.) Studying reliable observations of the Sun – Earth’s heat source – and
_ b.) Diligently putting together the pieces of this 69-year old puzzle:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/A_69_Year_Puzzle.pdf
With deep regrets,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
And this is why stevie mosher IS AN IDIOT.
In-depth studies, carried out over the last 45 seconds, confirm there is a direct link between the climate and politics.
Both climate and politics change over time !! A fact confirmed in the afore mentioned in-depth study.
“Man” is the main cause of all political change, therefore “Man” is the main cause of climate change.
The climate is seen as a problem if a particular political party is in power, whereas there is no problem at all to be see with the climate if the opposite party is at the helm.
So, the simplest way to solve any climate problems is to keep that party “who see no problems”, in power.
Not only will this save the Earth from certain destruction, it will save a lot of money in the national budget as there’ll be no need for climate science committees, reports, analysis, action etc.
Prior to the 45 second in-depth study, a cartoon was created, which may, or may not, conflict with the theme of the above summary.
That climate change cartoon is here . . . . . . . .
http://cartoonmick.wordpress.com/editorial-political/#jp-carousel-775
Cheers
Mick