#Fakegate…comedy and entertainment

Keep reading  → (Jonova)

While I was away for ten days, the warmist brigade published some documents, the main one turning out to be FAKE!

Surprise, surprise, they have lost the warming science debate so continue with smears and innuendo…and will soon have a ‘knock on the door’ from the lawyers. Fun, fun, fun. They cannot help themselves, so they provide us with a huge opportunity for comedy and entertainment.

The warmist shills are making a big song and dance about The Heartland Institute and their massive funding of around $6million dollars spent on the climate debate, even including a few thousand that the Koch Brothers donated to spend on Health Care!

This is extremely good value in winning the science debate, having been outspent by Obama, Brown (UK), Juliar Gillard as well as Gore and Company by at least 100/1…or is it 1000/1.

Jonova: “Instead the hyped non-denier-gate shows just how incredibly successful the Heartland Institute is. Look at the numbers. The skeptics have managed to turn the propaganda around against a tide of money, and it is really some achievement.

 Entity USD
Greenpeace  $300m  2010 Annual Report
WWF  $700m  ”  ($524m Euro)
Pew Charitable Trust  $360m 2010 Annual Report
Sierra Club  $56m 2010 Annual Report
NSW climate change fund (just one random govt example)  $750m  NSW Gov (A$700m)
UK university climate fund (just another random govt example) $360m UK Gov (£234 m)
Heartland Institute $6.4m
US government funding for climate science and technology  $7,000m  “Climate Money” 2009
US government funding for “climate related appropriations” $1,300m USAID 2010
Annual turnover in global carbon markets $120,000m
2010 Point Carbon
Annual investment in renewable energy $243,000m
2010  BNEF
US government funding for skeptical scientists $ 0

These are annual turnovers or annual budgets

So what the expose shows is that the Heartland Institute punches far above its weight with an incredibly efficient budget. “

Comments on all the links are a hoot…

About Tom Harley

Amateur ecologist and horticulturalist and CEO of Kimberley Environmental Horticulture Inc. (Tom Harley) Kimberley Environmental Horticulture Incorporated Kimberley Environmental Horticulture (KEH) is a small group of committed individuals who promote the use of indigenous plants for the landscaping of parks and gardens. Rehabilitation of Kimberley coast, bushland and pastoral regions are also high on our agenda. This includes planting seedlings, weed control, damage from erosion or any other environmental matter that comes to our attention. We come from all walks of life, from Professionals and Trades oriented occupations, Pensioners and Students, Public Servants and the Unemployed. We have a community plant nursery where we trial many old and new species, with a view to incorporating these into our landscaping trials. Our labour force are mainly volunteers, but with considerable help from the 'work for the dole' program, Indigenous Community Development Employment Program (CDEP) groups and the Ministry of Justice, with their community work orders; in this way we manage to train many people in the horticultural skills needed for indigenous plant growing. We constantly undertake field trips that cover seed and plant collection in the Kimberley. Networking around the Kimberley region and the east Pilbara is a necessary part of promoting our activities. We consult on a range of Environmental and Landscaping matters that deal with our region. Our activities involve improving Broome's residential streetscapes by including 'waterwise' priciples in planting out nature strips. Sustainable environmental horticulture is practised by members of our group. We use existing vegetation as the backbone of any plantings, using these species to advantage when planning to develop tree forms or orchards. The Broome region is sensitive to development. Subsequently many weed species have become dominant in and around developed areas. The use and movement of heavy machinery is the biggest single cause of environmental degradation. We dont live in a 'Tropical Paradise' but on the edge of the Great Sandy Desert. The plants that survive best here, grow in well-drained pindan sand, and are found from the Dampier Peninsular southward to where average rainfall is below 600mm. When we use rainforest species, detail is important when planting, water catchment, sunlight and understorey species are all considered. The use of recycled 'grey' water is an advantage here as well as treated waste-water, although many local species do not fare well with nutrients from this source. We use waterwise planting methods which include harvesting asmuch rainwater as possible, with swales designed to hold up to 200 litres, to help recharge the local groundwater aquifer. There has been a serious decline in this aquifer over the last few years. With the fast expansion of the Broome peninsular, more and more land is being covered by concrete, iron and bitumen so that much less water is available to replenish the aquifer, allowing the salt content to become significantly higher. The small Broome Peninsular is on the south-western corner of the Dampier Peninsular (bound by Broome, Derby and Cape Leveque at the northern tip). Compaction by vehicles also inhibits water retention due to the content of our local pindan sand, hard as concrete in the dry, going to soft and sloppy mud after rain. None of us are botanists, inevitably we have got some names wrong, names changed, or have not gone to sub-species level. If you note a photo or description may be wrong, please e-mail to kimenvhort@yahoo.com.au
This entry was posted in Climate, comedy, science, weather and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to #Fakegate…comedy and entertainment

  1. Lost the debate? You have got to be kidding. The science is stronger than ever – you simply need to become familiar with the literature. As with any science. Deniers are really looking quite pathetic (as well as anti-Australian, reckless and morally questionable)

    • Tom Harley says:

      I obviously read far more than science than you. Just go back through my archives and start reading, I know you wont, because it will take you years, as it has me. If you are doing science, you wont have time to read. For a start, there is a site that has peer reviewed papers from over 1000 scientists that all add up to the falsification of your hypothesis. It’s easy to find, just google it or search it here.
      I could also go on and use name-calling like you have here, but that is not what I do. I just shake my head and laugh at the knots admitted fraudsters like Gleick get themselves into.

      • Tom Harley says:

        Maybe good Dr., rather than call me names like “denier”, show me what science actually proves that increases in CO2 are causing temperatures to rise, especially over the last 15 years while temperatures are declining. I am all ears and eyes. You cant? Not a scientist then?

    • Tom Harley says:

      So Dr Davidson, which of these describes you?
      George and Wilcox, in their book “American Extremists”, list twenty-two common traits of extremists. The traits are:

      (1) character assassination; (2) name calling and labeling; (3) irresponsible sweeping generalizations; (4) inadequate proof for assertions; (5) advocacy of double standards; (6) tendency to view opponents and critics as essentially evil; (7) Manichean worldview; (8) advocacy of some degree of censorship or repression of opponents and/or critics; (9) a tendency to identify themselves in terms of who their enemies are: whom they hate and who hates them; (10) tendency toward argument by intimidation; (11) use of slogans, buzzwords, and thought stopping clichés; (12) assumption of moral or other superiority over others [like Dr. Gleick self-identification as an “ethicist”]; (13) doomsday thinking; (14) a belief that doing bad things in the service of a “good” cause is permissible; (15) emphasis on emotional responses, and, correspondingly, less importance to reasoning and logical analysis; (16) hypersensitivity and vigilance; (17) use of supernatural rationale for beliefs and actions; (18) problems tolerating ambiguity and uncertainty; (19) inclination toward “groupthink’; (20) tendency to personalize hostility; (21) a feeling that the “system” is no good unless they win; and (22) tendency to believe in far-reaching conspiracy theories.

      The recent behavior of Dr. Gleick along with many of his online apologists would seem to meet nearly all of these criteria. Is it time for civil society to become alarmed by the rise of global warming extremism?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s