[Coral-List] What do coral reef scientists perceive are the major threats to Caribbean coral reefs?

[Richard]

Gene,

You make an interesting point about the potential profits IPCC governmental
supporters stand to make on cap and trade.  I must admit that I'm not
knowledgeable enough about those connections to make a comment on them, but
certainly, no parties are insusceptible to financial influences.  It's
worth looking into those connections.

That said, I didn't read Doug's comment on the Heartland Institute as
denouncing their freedom of speech.  (That seems to be what you imply with
your reference to the Constitution.)  Rather, Doug seems to be questioning
the credibility of Heartland Institute.  To do so purely on the basis of
their conservative political leanings would be irresponsible.  Here are a
few points that cause me not to take their findings seriously:

1. They recieved $200,000 from the Charles G. Koch foundation for their
work on climate change.  Another $1,000,000 came from an anonymous donor.

2. The Heartland's Institute's other major cause (beyond climate change) is
touting the lack of negative health impacts from sidestream smoke.
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2008/07/01/scientific-evidence-shows-secondhand-smoke-no-danger.
Admittedly, I haven't studied the scientific reports on sidestream smoke,
but the Heartland institute taking another stand contradicting the
consensus of scientists in the field makes me skeptical of any of their
claims.

3. Numerous claims made by the Heartland Institute regarding climate change
do not stand up to analysis (e.g., solar activity is the key driver of
climate change).

Do these reasons mean that everything the Heartland Institute claims is
false? No.  But I think they do mean that we should be very careful
regarding claims they make, particularly when those claims fly in the face
of scientific consensus.

Here are a couple of other sources evaluating the Heartland Institute's
credibility:

1. Editotial in Nature: Nature Volume:475, Pages: 423–424. Date published:
(28 July 2011)

2. Sourcewatch.org's entry on the Heartland Institute:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heartland_Institute

I would welcome similar analysis on the IPCC.

(Here's Sourcewatch's entry on the IPCC:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/IPCC )

 Cheers,
Richard
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Eugene Shinn <eugeneshinn at mail.usf.edu>wrote:

> Doug I am well aware  who writers of the "Non Governmental" version of
> IPCC are. And, yes I understand the Heartland Inst. is a conservative
> group. However, I do not know who funds them and have never seen any
> evidence they are affiliated with the Oil Industry. As far as I know it
> is people who still believe in the US Constitution. The IPCC on the
> other hand is funded by the UN which is historically at the other end of
> the political spectrum. I understand that many of their governmental
> supporters stand to make a bundle from Cap and Trade taxes. Gene
>
> --
>
>
> No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS)
> ------------------------------------ -----------------------------------
> E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor
> University of South Florida
> College of Marine Science Room 221A
> 140 Seventh Avenue South
> St. Petersburg, FL 33701
> <eugeneshinn at mail.usf.edu>
> Tel 727 553-1158
> ---------------------------------- -----------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>