Heartland Institute billboard equates climate-change scientists with mass murderers

[JohnnySavage]

...

I have looked at numerous sites about the theory of relativity and only Wikipedia references Nuclear twice. The rest all talk about speed and time relative to each other. So what am I missing? Does the theory of relativity have applications in energy fields and nuclear physics? IDK, ask people who work in those fields. I know that the theory of relativity which came out in 1905 according to at least 2 sites I saw predates Einsteins work on the Manhattan project.

10th grade science class.

Special Relativity lead to the discovery of e-mc2

c2 is the speed of light and is a constant.

e is energy and m is mass. When you split an atom, the pieces don't add up to the original mass. The lost mass is transmuted into energy.

Thus concludes our lesson on how a fission reactor works.


Doesn't everyone know this???

 

[Ldy_Sea]

10th grade science class.

Special Relativity lead to the discovery of e-mc2

c2 is the speed of light and is a constant.

e is energy and m is mass. When you split an atom, the pieces don't add up to the original mass. The lost mass is transmuted into energy.

Thus concludes our lesson on how a fission reactor works.


Doesn't everyone know this???

E=MC2 or the theory of mass energy equivalence also came ut in 1905 by Einstein but they were seperate works. Yes one scientific discovery leads to another.

But they were and are seperate theories.

 

[JohnnySavage]

E=MC2 or the theory of mass energy equivalence also came ut in 1905 by Einstein but they were seperate works. Yes one scientific discovery leads to another.

But they were and are seperate theories.

Ahhh... I see you are from Florida. 'nuff said, and carry on.

 

[Ldy_Sea]

Relativity gave rise to nuclear physics.



Here's one book on it:

http://www.worldscibooks.com/physics/7099.html


MODERN ATOMIC AND NUCLEAR PHYSICS
(Revised Edition)
by Fujia Yang (Fudan University, China & Nottingham University, UK) & Joseph H Hamilton (Vanderbilt University, USA)

Table of Contents (400k)
Preface (392k)
Introduction (1,644k)Theory of Relativity
Chapter 1: (4,534k)
Chapter 2: The Configuration of the Atom: Rutherford's Model (7,565k)
Chapter 12.4: Fission and Fusion: Atomic Energy Utilization (8,275k)

The book is the culmination of the authors' many years of teaching and research in atomic physics, nuclear and particle physics, and modern physics. It is also a crystallization of their intense passion and strong interest in the history of physics and the philosophy of science.

The book gives students a broad perspective of the current understandings of the basic structures of matter from atoms, nucleus to leptons, quarks, and gluons along with the essential introductory quantum mechanics and special relativity. Fundamentals aside, the book retrospects the historical development and examines the challenging future directions of nuclear and particle physics. Interwoven within the content are up-to-date examples of very recent developments and future plans that show in detail how the techniques and ideas of atomic, nuclear, and particle physics have been used and are being used to solve important problems in basic and applied areas of physics, chemistry, and biology that are closely linked to the prevailing major societal problems in medicine, energy resources, new custom-made materials and environmental pollution, as well as areas that encroach the broad cultural and historical interest. The uncertain path of success and failure, opportunities seized and missed, and the axiom of probability and scientists' intuition in the unfolding human drama of scientific discovery are vividly presented. Throughout the highly perceptive book, readers, especially the students are encouraged to reflect on problems and ask questions.

So having never studied Nuclear Physics I did not know how the theory of relativity would apply. I was wrong about that. Thanks for teaching me something.

 

[Peregrinator]

So having never studied Nuclear Physics I did not know how the theory of relativity would apply. I was wrong about that. Thanks for teaching me something.

No worries. This place is great for that. Get anything wrong and sooner or later someone will let you know.

 

[Ldy_Sea]

Ahhh... I see you are from Florida. 'nuff said, and carry on.

And this proves what? I live in a state with a lot of sunshine?

 

[KingOrfeo]

And this proves what? I live in a state with a lot of sunshine?

That you come from the same state as jeninflorida (and me), which already had a reputation, and has been a running gag on the Lit for months now.

 

[renard_ruse]

From Discover:

[pic of billboard with photo of Unabomber Ted Kaczynski; caption, "I still believe in global warming. Do you?"]

Sounds like a powerful rhetorical question. Not sure what is "vile and disgusting" about it.

Also, Kaczynski was not a "mass murderer."

 

[KingOrfeo]

c2 is the speed of light and is a constant.

Nitpick: c is the speed of light, not c2.

 

[Ldy_Sea]

That you come from the same state as jeninflorida (and me), which already had a reputation, and has been a running gag on the Lit for months now.

Ahh I see. However I don't "come from" I live in there is a difference. I come from Brooklyn where I lived until I Joined the Navy. I have been in Florida for about 25% of my life. I have also lived in Virginia, California, and North Carolina.

I have been on a total of 3 continents and I have driven through each and every one of the 48 contigious states, spending at least one night in most of them.

So make any joke you want. Just don't get pissy when I return the favor.

 

[KRCummings]

IDK, ask people who work in those fields. I know that the theory of relativity which came out in 1905 according to at least 2 sites I saw predates Einsteins work on the Manhattan project.

Einstein worked on the Manhattan Project?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Sounds like a powerful rhetorical question. Not sure what is "vile and disgusting" about it.

Yes, you are. It is in the nature of a "Hitler Ate Sugar!" argument.

Also, Kaczynski was not a "mass murderer."

Well, a serial killer. But apparently Heartland was planning to cover all bases with billboards featuring Charlie Manson, Fidel Castro and Osama bin Laden. (Castro, unlike some Communist dictators, is not a mass murderer either, but that would not detract from the strength, such as it is, of the message.)

 

[Sean Renaud]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but you may want to check your math. According to my calculations, if it's warming roughly .36 per decade, in 10 years it would have rose .36.

I was never good at the calculus though.

I'm gonna quietly admit I was wrong and meant to say in 30 years but since I was then and am now drunk I'm going with fuck you tha's how!

Also seriously, you guys spent energy debating Urchin? Was this a bad Cinco for everybody but me? Hell even before it started I flat out admitted I wasn't responding and had just lifted the crazy veil to see what was underneath, it apparently turned out to be more crazy. A lot more crazy judging from the quotes I saw.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Well, that is an interesting phenomenon. Back in the 1980s, I would have said that nobody but a working scientist gets bitterly emotional over a scientific question unless it disturbs something pretty essential in their world-view, as evolution disturbs any Bible literalist. Global warming is not, one should think, a subject of that kind. But it is disturbing on a different level, as it seems to demand actual real-world changes in how we live and do things. Changes, worse, which only governments can make effectively -- that's the part that boils blood and raises hackles.

More interesting still, it raises two completely different sets of blood-hackles: Vested business interests whose bottom-line might be hurt by any effective action governments might take against global warming; and ordinary shlubs who have no money invested in such companies and never will, but who see through ideological goggles and see all environmentalists as "watermelons" (green on the outside, red on this inside).

I should imagine the Heartland Institute gets a lot more money from the former than the latter.

And, I would probably be right -- almost certainly -- though Heartland's policy of secrecy as to its funding-sources makes it hard to be entirely certain:

The Heartland Institute, according to the Institute's web site, is a nonprofit "think tank" that questions the reality and import of climate change, second-hand smoke health hazards, and a host of other issues that might seem to require government regulation. A July 2011 Nature editorial points out the group's lack of credibility:

"Despite criticizing climate scientists for being overconfident about their data, models and theories, the Heartland Institute proclaims a conspicuous confidence in single studies and grand interpretations....makes many bold assertions that are often questionable or misleading.... Many climate sceptics seem to review scientific data and studies not as scientists but as attorneys, magnifying doubts and treating incomplete explanations as falsehoods rather than signs of progress towards the truth. ... The Heartland Institute and its ilk are not trying to build a theory of anything. They have set the bar much lower, and are happy muddying the waters."[1]

<snip>

Funding


Foundation funders

Media Transparency lists Heartland as having received grants from a range of foundations between 1986 and 2009. Of these foundations, by far the largest donor has been the foundation of Chicago industrialist Barre Seid[41], maker of Tripp Lite surge protectors.
Barbara and Barre Seid Foundation $1,037,977
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation $648,000
Exxon Mobil $531,500
Walton Family Foundation $400,000
Sarah Scaife Foundation $325,000
Charlotte and Walter Kohler Charitable Trust $190,500
Jaquelin Hume Foundation $166,000
Rodney Fund $135,000
JM Foundation $82,000
Castle Rock Foundation $70,000
Roe Foundation $41,500
John M. Olin Foundation $40,000
Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation $40,000
Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation $37,578
Armstrong Foundation $30,000
Hickory Foundation $13,000
Carthage Foundation $10,000


Exxon funding

Greenpeace's ExxonSecrets website lists Heartland as having received $676,500 (unadjusted for inflation) from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2006.[42] (As mentioned above, Heartland insist that Exxon has not contributed to the group since 2006.)[43]

Exxon contributions include:
$30,000 in 1998;
$115,000 in 2000;
$90,000 in 2001;
$15,000 in 2002;
$85,000 for General Operating Support and $7,500 for their 19th Anniversary Benefit Dinner in 2003;
$85,000 for General Operating Support and $15,000 for Climate Change Efforts in 2004; and
$119,000 in 2005; and
$115,000 in 2006.


Secrecy on funding sources

While Heartland once disclosed its major supporters, it now refuses to publicly disclose who its corporate and foundation funders are. In response to an article criticizing the think tank for its secrecy, the group's President, Joseph Bast, wrote in February 2005:
"For many years, we provided a complete list of Heartland's corporate and foundation donors on this Web site and challenged other think tanks and advocacy groups to do the same. To our knowledge, not a single group followed our lead. However, critics who couldn’t or wouldn’t engage in fair debate over our ideas found the donor list a convenient place to find the names of unpopular companies or foundations, which they used in ad hominem attacks against us. Even reporters from time to time seemed to think reporting the identities of one or two donors--out of a list of hundreds--was a fair way of representing our funding or our motivation in taking the positions expressed in our publications. After much deliberation and with some regret, we now keep confidential the identities of all our donors."[44]
It has also claimed that "by not disclosing our donors, we keep the focus on the issue."[43]


Funding base


Diverse funding base, reports Heartland

According to Heartland,[6]
"The following facts show that Heartland is not a “front group”: ... Diverse funding base: Heartland has grown slowly over the years by cultivating a diverse base of donors who share its mission. Today it has approximately 2,000 supporters. In 2010 it received 48 percent of its income from foundations, 34 percent from corporations, and 14 percent from individuals. No corporate donor gave more than 5 percent of its annual budget."


Additional detail; funding source breakdown

Heartland stated that "in 2007 it received 71 percent of its income from foundations, 16 percent from corporations, and 11 percent from individuals. No corporate donor gave more than 5 percent of its annual budget ... ExxonMobil has not contributed to Heartland since 2006. Indeed, gifts from all energy companies - coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear - combined did not exceed 5 percent of Heartland’s budget in 2007."[43] (Heartland states that its 2007 revenue was approximately $5.2 million.[43] Based on this Heartland statement, in 2007 foundations provided approximately $3.69 million, corporations contributed $832,000 and approximately 1,600 individuals[45] Energy companies -- "coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear" -- contributed approximately 5% or around $260,000.)


Unbalanced; 35% to 58% of support from just one donor

A single donor provided 35% of Heartland's revenue in 2009 and 58% in 2008[46], and 38% in 2007.[47]


Donations of software, source TBD

Heartland's 2009 Form 990 reports over $120,000 in donations of software, apparently from a single source.[48]


Corporate sponsorship options, and perks

In its 2008 annual report to supporters, Heartland outlines that corporate sponsorships start out at $10,000, with the next rung up being "silver" sponsors which contribute $25,000, "gold" sponsors donating $50,000 and "platinum" sponsors kicking in $100,000.[13]


Independent, or a lobby shop?

Heartland's 1999 letter said benefits of Platinum and Gold sponsorship included "special consideration of documents for promotion via PolicyFax", and "attention to issues of special concern in Intellectual Ammunition and other publications"(page 8+) - which, given Heartland's announced primary audience of legislators, would seem to amount to lobbying.


1999 funders internal data

A June 1999 Heartland document (page 8+) in the Tobacco Archives lists Heartland's then-recent corporate, foundation and individual donors, and, for the highest spenders, roughly how much they gave.

Among the Platinum Sponsors were the D & D Foundation, Philip Morris, Procter & Gamble, and the Barre Seid Foundation. Gold sponsors included the American Petroleum Institute and the Bradley Foundation.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Check out this graph!

 

[phrodeau]

So if not proven wrong, it is either proven right or UNPROVEN. Umm so it's you who doesn't understand unproven.



Gavity is a law according to
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html
http://physics.about.com/od/classicalmechanics/a/gravity.htm'which states



So who is the ignorant ass now?



Well maybe because the theory of relativity has to do with the speed of light being the maximum speed of particles in the universe and nothing to do woth nuclear physics, or electricity.



No need to beat a dead horse here.



Why did the temperature rise 2.9 billion years ago when man was not on the planet and the first of the five major Ice ages began to end. Or fir each of the other Ice Ages when man was either nonexsistent or still living in caves and using wood and stone for tools. No industrial revolution to conviently blame. Answer that for me.

The carbon dioxide in earth's atmosphere today is known to be higher than it would be if humans weren't burning fossil fuels. The isotope signatures prove that burning fossil fuels is the source of the increased carbon dioxide.

The earth should be in the cooling part of its natural cycle. It is not cooling. Global warming has leveled off somewhat, but the temperature is still higher now than the average over the last century.

If you want to argue that increased carbon dioxide doesn't lead to global warming, go ahead. But you have to start with the facts.