I'll back Sharon Beder's academic and scientific credentials over the author's spurious snivelling anytime. What are his qualifications? How many examples of corporate/ industry misbehaviour has he carefully researched and published?
Cambo

The author says "Ms Beder, whose work on climate has never appeared in a peer-reviewed journal ... "

I don't recall Ms Beder's aritcle exactly, but the general criticism of Senator Fielding, that he seeks to find out about climate change by attending a conference devoted to putting a particular point of view, can be made by anyone, it doesn't need a climate scientist.

If it comes to that, why do I keep hearing the same name (Willie Soon) put forward as a serious scientist who challenge the consensus climate change science? Aren't there any others? And when I do keep hearing the same name, why isn't it a climate scientist (or, for example, an atmospheric physicist), rather than an astrophysicist?

You both have the same problem , you have mistaken Religion ALP styled for Science .

Hooray for Sharon?

There are many reasons why.

One was because she published a book titled Global Spin. A book which exposes the activities of the right-wing think tanks in creating the "news" and public opinion.

Another is because she is associated with this group of people, whose function is to expose and question the 24/7 wall to wall edifice of government and corporate lies that now dominate the media (and always did for that matter).

1. http://www.medialens.org

A different point. Has anyone noticed the puritannical censorship code which limits some terms that can be used in making postings?

Yesterday I tried to use a word which was made up of these letters.
wa nk er

I was censored for using a profanity.

Let’s just face facts. The Climate Change movement is simply a full frontal attack on Christianity. It works on the proposition that Almighty God is incompetent, that men are infallible, and that we as a collective human race, are in control.

It does seriously ignore the fact that in China there are over 1.5 billion people and something like the same on the Indian subcontinent. These three billion people are about as likely to submit to discipline from us, as the moon is made of green cheese. The solution, short of a nuking of both China and India, is to persuade them that the world does not owe them a living, it owes us one. This also is unlikely, so we have liberal academics attacking one man in the Parliament of the Commonwealth who is doing his job properly and finding out all he can about climate change.

One of the immutable laws of nature, is that populations expand in proportion to the available food supply. As a rule, we get plagues of rats from time to time. In nature this leads to a plague of cats, and when the cats get on top of rat numbers, they starve to death and the population stabilizes. The same goes for all species. The top predator in the food chain, is the human being. By science we have developed the ability to feed an enormous population. When the world was only about three billion there was widespread fear of food shortages. It is now six billion, and the only shortages are man made, not physical. Carbon is an essential element in both human beings and food.

We have intellectual problems accepting that every human being has a soul. The tendency to regard us as simply a commodity, is un-Christian. We all make CO2 every day. Should we be destroyed for that? Science and Christianity are not incompatible. Science makes for a quality of life, unbelievably better than it was two thousand years ago. Much science is done by Christians. It is okay to be a scientist and a Christian

Mr Bast has egg on his face calling someone a lightweight while trumpeting his think tank as "among the nation's best known and highly regarded". The Heartland Institute isn't among the USA's elite by any means, exhibited by his absence from citation rankings. They are a fringe group, no more. Mr Bast trying to throw his lot in with other conservative and libertarian groups is a dirty trick to pretend they share his views.
Source: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3322

He makes it even worse by sticking up for Willie Soon. After Dr Soon got his flagship denialism paper published in Climate Research half the editorial board resigned and the managing director of the company acknowledged they let it slip through by accident. The article itself was gimped by hideous scientific oversights (if you don't believe me have a read of the outraged scientists who he misinterpreted in his citations) and when it was repeated with a decent methodology the results totally supported extreme climate change.
Sources:http://www.sgr.org.uk/climate/StormyTimes_NL28.htm
http://www.int-res.com/articles/misc/CREditorial.pdf

His claims about the number of astrophysicists supporting denialism are probably as bogus as his earlier research, which had dozens of scientists say they didn't belong on his list of denialists (http://www.desmogblog.com/500-scientists-with-documented-doubts-about-the-heartland-institute).

If you want to talk about support for anthropogenic climate change, let's talk about how no national or international scientific organisation endorses his brand of denialism. Don't you think that if there was any merit to his claims that at least one national scientific organisation would support them? Just one out of the hundreds? Guess what: none do.

His claim that global warming being a trick to increase government power is laughable. Other one liners courtesy of the Heartland Institute: "A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization." and "The best strategy to pursue is one of 'no regrets'."

Quick tip, Joseph: as the CEO of a think tank, you should know that people don't share "theses", they share beliefs or accept theories

Gosh, the heavyweight Heartland Institute has condescended to write for little old Oz. We should feel flattered, even if the opening salvo at 'light-weight liberal academics' does suggest they don't understand the culture is somewhat different to the good old USA.

The deep deliberate dishonesty of these people is embodied in the reference to 'the notion - put forward in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth and in countless children’s books - that the warming of the second-half of the 20th century was “exceptional” or can only be explained by man-made greenhouse gases.' This fiction that support for the concept of AGW is limited to pop culture and 'liberals' is fundamental to their efforts to misrepresent the issues (and their obsessive hatred of Al Gore is bizarrely disturbing).

The weight of majority scientific opinion is obvious to anyone who approaches the discussion with an open mind, reinforced most recently by a atudy from MIT http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html which found most previous predictions under-estimated the likely effects of AGW. No doubt the hacks at the Heartland Institute will dismiss the scientists at MIT, one of America's most respected centres of learning in the hard sciences, as more 'light-weight liberal academics'. I'm sure they'll tell us the MIT findings should be ignored in preference to the entirely disinterested opinions emanating from the careerists riding the denialist gravy train at the Heartland Institute.

The way in which a small number of people continue to put obstacles in the way of action to counter climate change for personal and political advantage is utterly contemptible. They may well be respnsible for the deaths and immiseration of hundreds of millions of people, not that this will bother them. They have no consciences, just a commitment to their own self-importance. Fielding is a natural fellow traveller.

I wasn't going to comment on this drivel until I read Peter the Babbler's post:

<< The Climate Change movement is simply a full frontal attack on Christianity. >>

Now I know why so many godbotherers are climate change denialists!

There are two non overlapping areas of enquiry. The first, of which Professor Sharon Beder is a member, is the sociology of science or the history of science or the assumed psychology of named scientists. In the pursuit of motives any scurrilous tit bits may be dredged up by opponents of a particular paradigm. Now the sociology of science can be a worthwhile academic discipline - for instance the seminal work of Thomas Kuhn on scientific revolution. The global warming paradigm is under attack. The classic response is for the defenders to modify the paradigm and/or denigrate the attackers.

The second line of enquiry is the verification of the paradigm. Sociology and the related disciplines have no role to play in the verification process. Verification requires the strict application of the best scientific methodology of the day. The scientist and his work is judged on scientific merit only. It matters not if he/she is an exemplary character or not in some other area of life.

And this tripe from the same author --

The Atlanta Journal and Constitution - 2004)

On May 27, Surgeon General Richard Carmona released a report on the health effects of cigarette smoking. As has been true of every surgeon general's report in recent memory, Carmona's claims smoking is "even worse" for smokers than previously thought.

Everyone knows smoking is bad for you. Billions of dollars are spent each year --- paid by smokers through cigarette taxes and the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement --- to tell us how bad smoking is. Far from ignoring these warnings, studies have shown that smokers actually overestimate the odds that smoking will harm their health.

"The dose makes the poison" is the first law of toxicology, so instead of telling people they either have to quit or die, the surgeon general should be telling smokers to smoke less, switch to lower-tar products or consider smokeless tobacco products.

The current issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute reports on a University of Minnesota study of reduced-harm cigarettes and smokeless tobacco. The study documents how these products reduce exposure to harmful carcinogens.

Instead of calling attention to these products, which could actually save the lives of smokers, the anti-tobacco lobby calls for higher taxes and more smoking bans. Taxes on cigarettes are already excessive and grossly unjust.

Smoking bans are also not the answer. Governments don't own private bars and restaurants, and neither do nonsmokers or their lobbying groups.

Carmona's report is just another shot at smokers taken by an anti- smoking movement enriched with billions of dollars from liberal foundations, taxpayers and the MSA.

Enough is enough. Let's show a little tolerance and respect for others.

> Joseph L. Bast is president of The Heartland Institute, a nonprofit research organization based in Chicago that receives tobacco company donations.

Credit: FOR THE JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION

<“Let’s just face facts. The Climate Change movement is simply a full frontal attack on Christianity. It works on the proposition that Almighty God is incompetent, that men are infallible, and that we as a collective human race, are in control.”>

Peter the believer, you certainly have outed yourself as racist, discriminatory and in denial. Your god is not incompetent, it's non existent except in the minds of the weak and dishonest. You've had thousands of years to provide some evidence for the credibility of your god and belief, what's the hold up. Why would we want to listen to a country which has created so much evil and destruction in the world, the USA is a basket case of religious violence, crime, suppression and constant interference and invasion of any who don't submit to their dictates.

The truth according to their site, is, the USA "heartland institute”, consists of right wing materialists who support tobacco, the law of the gun, total privatisation, economic growth no matter what, a fully private and discriminatory health system and schools for those who can afford it and nothing for the rest. They also believe in full de-regulation of business and property rights, so business can seize property for profit, mine and clear anywhere they feel they want to.

The author of this piece, on the heartland site claims 31000 scientists signed a petition disclaiming climate change, yet they don't present it. It's the same with their donors, they make excuses for not revealing them. If you have to do that, you have something to hide.

Attention climate change denialists:

<< Climate report stresses urgent action

Researchers are warning the planet is facing a growing risk of abrupt and irreversible climatic shifts unless carbon emissions are reduced.

A new report says greenhouse gas emissions and other indicators are closing in on the upper limits forecast by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change two years ago.

The University of Copenhagen released the Synthesis Report overnight which draws on 1,600 scientific contributions to a global climate summit held in Copenhagen earlier this year. >>

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/19/2602694.htm

Personally, I think that the University of Copenhagen has a tad more credibility than the widely discredited "Heartland Institute". Fortunately, sensible governments such as ours and the USA's do too.

CJ I'm not sure I understand this, maybe you don't either.

You say "Attention climate change denialists:" OK, that's the folks who don't believe that the climate actually changes correct - so they DENY that climate can change or does change, just so we understand your particular intended childish insult and don't get it wrong.

But then you quote "Climate report stresses urgent action. Researchers are warning the planet is facing a growing risk of abrupt and irreversible climatic shifts unless carbon emissions are reduced."

So how do these things relate? So you want to draw Climate Change "denialists" attention to a report which is in panic and alarm that the climate might change?

So the "denialists" are actually those who don't want the climate to change, like you - me, I'm a questioner of man made CO2 contributing to warming, but I don't know of anyone who "denies that climate changes" except the devout like yourself who constantly sneer at anyone with a differing opinion. I don't have a problem with the climate changing, you apparently do.. so you want to stop climate change .. good luck with that, can you stop volcanos as well, or as someone said recently , why not start with something smaller, like the tide. Hilarious!

Let us all know, please, if you find anyone at all who doesn't think the climate changes and actually denies that it does. WAFI.

Ignore your detractors, PtB. They're angry at you for exposing the god-hatred behind the AGW scam.

I urge you to spread the word. If you can get the public to associate religious fundamentalism with AGW skepticism, and combine it with the scientific credentials of the Heartland Institute, skeptics will soon enjoy the same popularity and credibility as the Intelligent Design community.

Do it for Jesus.

"even in such far off corners as the Media and Communications department of the School of Social Sciences at the University of Woollongong in New South Wales Australia" It appears that the "Middle Kingdom" mentality is florishing in the USA, what is this insular ignoramus suggesting, the further away from America the lower the IQ or academic standards.

To suggest Global Warming is anti-Christian, where is the logic in that.
It's a bit like saying there was no Jewish holocaust because God would never let it happen, again where is the logic in that.
It makes little difference if you deny Global Warming is man-made or not
The planet is warming and we all have a responsibility to do what ever we can.
The GW deniers are suggesting because people die on the roads everyday the law is not working so we should have no regulations.
Keep up the good work Sharon.
One good thing comes from the deniers, it keeps the issue topical and hopefully in our face enough to do something about it.

BeefyBoy. You should have said, "There is no God, because if there was, then He would not have let the holocaust happen to His chosen people."

Getting back to the subject of global warming, there are plenty of people who believe that global warming, which is in my opinion, undeniable, may have several causes, one of which may be man made, but as well may be caused by unrecognised (at least by the unwashed multitude) natural causes. If you look at the changes of temperature vs CO2 in the Wikipedia site, it is quite apparent that for the past 800,000 years, nature has been at work with temperatures and CO2 levels rising and falling in concert. In more recent times, the CO2 levels have risen significantly above what might have been expected, had not man intervened. This may even prove to be our salvation, as both the rise in CO2 and the increase in temperature should result in higher plant growth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg

David

Another good read on the subject of climate change is available at

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

David

it's good to see this revolting little creep is getting the response he deserves.

Plans going a little awry for you Mr Bast? And what do you think of the shocking reviews of Plimer's "Heaven and Mirth" by Australia's most eminent scientists eh?

But you sure have impressed Steve Fielding (aka Rip Van Winkle) who's only just discovered climate change but clearly he doesn’t believe the light-weight Plimer, otherwise why would he grace you with his presence in the US? And could you please advise Mr Bast why Fielding failed to consult our leading climate scientists in Australia? Aw…..what a c**kup you guys are making!

Yessir, but the Heartland Institute sure puts on a good conference with many distinguished speakers. For instance, I recall last year, there was the estimable Prof. Fred Singer, a world class denier who has accepted contributions from Exxon, Shell, ARCO, Unocal, and Sun Oil and who denies not only global warming but also cigarettes/lung cancer and CFCs/ozone depletion. Hey what a guy!

Now the mob's invading Australian forums, setting you up as their "top tyrant" to redeem their botched cause. But you and your mob will not be excused for the damage you're doing to our planet. So off you go now Mr Bast and leave our respected Sharon Beder to continue her good works for the Australian community.

CJ, Beefyboy, Sancho...

I read Peter The Believer's post, and from what I gathered, the initial post that you quoted CJ, was merely a preface to an argument refuting the idea that Christianity and science must be at odds.

This is a point I'd heartily endorse, because regardless of our many differing theological quibbles, I'd hope that different philosophies can come together on this issue.

Sometimes PtB's posts tend to be too religion focused (i.e. his many posts indicating that our legal system, parliament and so on, are all flawed because they drifted from some kind of weird theocratic christian concept, which really creeps me the hell out) but here it seems to make sense.

So yeah - religion and science don't need to be at odds.

As for the 'heartland institute'...

... ... it's called the 'heartland institute.'

Pfft.

I bet I could mount an awesome argument tearing this to pieces.
In actuality, I think 'pfft' is about as much as this childish spray deserves. I haven't read the piece it purports to demolish... but even if the piece it's attacking is trash, it doesn't justify more trash.

Whenever I travel to the USA for the latest scientific research, knowledge and data, I always find it a tough choice between NASA and Heartland.

NASA

or

Heartland?

Hmmmmmmm, have to really think on this.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/index.html

or

http://www.heartland.org/suites/tobacco/

?

Where does an intelligent person go?

An organisation that actually does science? And has done so with considerable success - moon landing, shuttles and offers minute by minute observations of the entire earth?

Or an organisation that defends and is subsidised by Tobacco industry?

Bast, clearly Fielding made a wrong turn at LAX and wound up in your lobby by mistake. I am a magnanimous person and am willing to concede he made a honest mistake.

Good luck with the sales of "Please Don’t Poop in My Salad" (serious) love the disclaimer, Bast:

"Defending smokers is a thankless task in today’s politically correct environment, and Bast doesn’t deny that smoking is an unhealthy habit."

Bast defending the indefensible.

One of my fans, decries my research that has connected our legal system to Christianity, but he should invest $20 and read the book State of Fear, by the late Michael Crichton. Crichton has a thirty page bibliography in the back of it, backing his conclusion that Climate Change, is a psychop, an operation to psyschologically manipulate the general public.

The novel itself could not be set in Australia because in Australia the issue cannot at the moment get a fair trial. It is set on the issue of a low lying island in the Pacific, suing the United States, for damages, for causing global warming, by its pollution and consumerism. A millionaire put up a million dollars, the best Counsellor is engaged, and forty people are put together in a research team. The Senior Counsel finally concludes the case cannot be won in front of a jury. Plenty of murder and mayhem, along the way as well. A jolly good read.

One of the problems most of us in Australia have is that we have not yet lived long enough. By living for a fair while, reading extensively, and having time to do research, it is quite clear that the only reason England and after them the United States survived as a State, was their adoption of a Christian legal system. We are not having riots like Teheran is. We have had no Tianmen Square, although we did have the Gordon riots, in England, when they admitted Roman Catholics back into the mainstream. We have now adopted the Roman Catholic Legal System in Australia, and that really annoys me.

Protestant Christianity hates slavery, but we have been made slaves, of the States. We must work, or some of us must, to maintain our State masters, without getting anything in return. The Global Warming Scam, is an invention to enslave us again, but this time to the Commonwealth. It is tribalism, where the Tribe wants to enforce its will on all. Christianity was the end of tribalism.
Belief in the Trinity is a belief in a higher authority

<”One of my fans, decries my research that has connected our legal system to Christianity, but he should invest $20 and read the book State of Fear, by the late Michael Crichton.”>

Peter T B, our legal system has nothing to do with christianity, it derives from Canaanite, Sumerian, Greek and Roman origins, well before christianity and god. Do some proper anthropological research, don't just rely upon ideological fairy tales. Canaanite societies were the first western style democracies, their history, laws and customs are fully documented and reflect a humane approach to justice, unlike the barbaric Abrahmic ones they replaced. Michael Critchon was a writer and doctor, he was a big advocate of the rights of smokers, denying smoking caused problems. He died of throat cancer. Most of his writing is science fiction and very good.

What do you class as living long enough. England and the USA survived in spite of their christianity, both have extensive histories of barbarism, inequality, discrimination, slavery and genocidal invasion against all they encountered. Those are the only christian values they aspire to, as none other are viewable or demonstrative. No we haven't had riots like they have else where when the people have been suppressed, they killed as many as they could and enslaved the rest of the indigenous when they objected to christian values and legal system being imposed upon them.

Protestant christianity thrived on slavery, the USA being the prime example. Christianity is a tribe of god, as is Islam and Judaism, they are even described in the OT bible as that. Like all tribes they act the same when faced with difference, convert, enslave, or destroy. It's interesting most denying climate change are religious, or follow some other destructive ideology. Could that be a deep fear of reality, so denial must hold sway, psychologically, it could be described as such.

I agree that rpg seems confused, and also increasingly shrill in his/her denialism. WAFW.

The word has been handed down to the reserve/B team. "Get into print supporting our main money earner". "If we loose the AGW funding, some of you pretend sciences will have to go".

Aren't they responding well?. So much rubbish appearing in print, or on the air. The next one will probably be the tiddleywinks scientific evaluation & research foundation. I'm sure they will have some rare insights to share with us. As we all know, their special interest is how to get money out of the punters.

Whops, we're not supposed to know that, are we?

Obviously the IPCC, & fellow travlers know better than us, how close to collapse the whole fabrication is, & are in a hell of a rush to get us all tied up in the natural male bovine fertiliser, before it's too late.

Welcome Joseph Bast, As you can see here,the global warning flu and its yellow journalism practitioners continue to infect and deliver new carrier hosts fielding for a cause.

Typical right wing fascist liar. Never once defends his position just spouts dubious personal attacks on someone he knows nothing of and I dare say has never heard of before a few weeks ago.
Sharon Beder is well known in the Illawarra and has supported and initiated many good and worthwhile local programs for the community.
I seem to remember a few books published by her and plenty of articles in local media by and about her. Wollongong University is a well respected institution and would not be supporting long term someone who is as biased and "light weight" an academic as this author makes out.
What a vile seppo tosser.

Personally, I fail to understand why people bother that much with the question of whether climate change is significantly human caused or not.

I've seen enough evidence to suggest pollution of all forms, not just CO2, is causing species to die off, so I'm happy to go along with the crowd of believers. Many of the solutions to Co2 problems, will also create solutions for other forms of pollution.

Quite frankly though, the human race deserves partial self-destruction and greed at the individual level is likely to ensure that solutions are not put in place in time. Folks should take absolutely no notice of any persons with religious beliefs or any person associated with big business - as it is these people that continue to promote irresponsible activiites, such as having more than 1 or 2 children, or recklessly using the environment for their own interests. To support high levels of greed in individuals, capitalism relies on economic growth. Religions relies on having kids under their control to brainwash while young. Both are unsustainable over the long term.

Politicans won't save us - they simply side with whichever side provides them with the best opportunities to gain power- and are presently totally ruled by both sides. ie "We must cut power use, but here are baby and first home buyers bonuses, so that you can have more kids". re CFC - "here is some money we have borrowed on your behalf so that you can spend it on useless consumption to support our wealthy capitalist friends, who give donations and freebies to us pollies".

The opinions of strongly religious folk, should be seen to be like those of children - in accepting god (namely the falsities of spiritual politicians- churches) as their master they either do not develop or loose their ability to think outside of thier own social groups egotistical memes.

Incidentally, Bast's funding claim is meaningless because the Heartland Institute doesn't disclose its donors. Check it out at: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute

Why stop at 14%? Why not say there's no corporate funding, and that the Institute survives on remissions from grateful third-world sweatshop workers? It would be scarcely less believable than everything else it publishes.

Jimhas, you have summed the situation up perfectly.

David