Coming soon to a Heartland page

Last year Heartland had a Russell Seitz (probably a different one) giving a speech titled Coal Power Not At Odds with Reducing Carbon Emissions.

Then there's "Russell Seitz", Visiting Scholar in Harvard University's Center for International Affairs back in 1986.

Surely this is a conspiracy.

Now, Russ is teh funneh.

Horner & Morano - brilliant.

Best,

D

Neocons on one side. Retarded liberals pushing massive bail-out package on the other side. Politicians are all idiots.

One of many reasons for casting a gimlet eye on Heartland is the liberties it has taken even with the scientific work of those critical of Green polemic excess.

Like revising the titles of papers without the authors consent , in defiance of their content- the title of mine, which you would never guess from their invented one ,being

"Black Hydrogen,"

It advocates reducing the carbon to energy ratio of solid fossil fuels by preferentially exploiting high hydrogen coal, as opposed to anthracite . Geochemistry still matters.

The global difference might add up to half a wedge.

a variant of my presentation can read at

http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2006/08/black_hydrogen.html

My views on the conference and the problem it represents are given at some length at
http://www.takimag.com/site/article/the_rights_science_problem/

Black Hydrogen link UPDATE

Sorry, my blog is dormant- the more recent version given at the conference is at

http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2007/12/the-greens-blac.html

So did we just have the honour of meeting the Russell Seitz who spoke at last year's Heartland conference?

And is it the case that the Heartland Institute, using the patent-pending Heartland Scientific Method, turned "Black Hydrogen" into "Coal Power Not At Odds with Reducing Carbon Emissions" which is probably on its way to transmogrifying into "Russell Seitz Thinks The Earth Is Cooling And Is Hiring 31,000 Lawyers To Help Lord Monckton Sue Al Gore"?

I guess that means Seitz should stop associating himself with the inactivists such the goons at Tech Central Station[1] and at Heartland.

[1] if Tim Worstall's any guide, and that's a big if

Frank, I enjoyed Russ at TCS - the poor goofs who eat up that stuff were all a-flustergated at his columns. Comedy gold.

Best,

D

Dano:

Weird, I can't find anything signed "Russell Seitz" at tcsdaily.com. Did they all get freedom'd away, or was I looking in the wrong place?

bi,

I found Russell's stuff at:

http://www.tcsdaily.com/Authors.aspx?id=236

Also, I found Russell's blog post about there actually being only enough Scientists attendees at the Heartland Conference to fill a Phone Box hilarious (link below). It surprised me that it never was picked up upon. Cheers for that Russell!

http://www.takimag.com/sniperstower/article/a_booth_for_19/

He wrote a lot more than that for them, but I guess AEI only wanted to pony up so much for server archive memory.

Best,

D

Yea-mon, Dano: (-:

Uploaded Seitz's poster onto Wikiality (hope he's OK with that). Haven't used it in any article yet though.

Bi-LJI : If they tried

"Russell Seitz Thinks The Earth Is Cooling And Is Hiring 31,000 Lawyers To Help Lord Monckton Sue Al Gore",

since Monckton's a delightful fellow as long as he sticks to talking cricket and puzzle making and I share alumni interests with Al , I might be tempted to drop a writ on Heartland instead.

I don't know who your Seitz clown is, but here are the comments of Dr. Frederick Seitz, former President of the National Academy of Sciences in asking educated scientists: physicists, geologists, engineers, physicians and others with scientific training to sign the Oregon Petition in opposition to the Kyoto and similar agreements:

"It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice."

"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earthâs atmosphere and disruption of the Earthâs climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. Over 35,000 scientists have now signed the petition.

Most of you who read this blog were smoking pot and reading Das Kapital while those of who actually do science for a living were sweating over differential equations, but if you do have the training to evaluate the data, it will not be difficult for you to conclude that the theory of AGW is no longer credible.

PS. Note to leftist moonbats: Please feel free to attack Dr. Seitz instead of discussing the data.

"Most of you who read this blog were smoking pot and reading Das Kapital while those of who actually do science for a living were sweating over differential equations"

those who were smoking pot and sweating over differential equations would have had to be the ones who had the most aptitude.

Meanwhile, the nice folks at the Heartland Institute were sweating over yet another promotional video...

george h.:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earthâs atmosphere and disruption of the Earthâs climate.

I believe you without evidence.

George H.

"PS. Note to leftist moonbats: Please feel free to attack Dr. Seitz instead of discussing the data."

Well, could you provide us with some data then?

A propos the poster's text , thanks are due George H. for reminding us that without followers such as he , their would be no leading Know-Nothings.

Since fewer than 196 of the 35,000 seem ti have published any peer reviewed climate science papers, I suppose I must revise the 99 & 44/100 % upwards as well.

So, um, whatever happened to Dr. Seitz's site, Adamant? I checked over there last week, no updates since October.

Anybody know what's up?