The Heartland Institute's Quest for "Real Science" on Global Warming
The Heartland Institute, a Chicago-headquartered think tank that has taken on the role of trying to coordinate the disparate global warming skeptics, has organized yet another conference to be held in Washington this week disputing the reality of global warming. "The real science and economics of climate change support the view that global warming is not a crisis and that immediate action to reduce emissions is not necessary," they claim.
But when the Heartland Institute talks about "real science," it is hard to ignore the fact that for years they have defended the policy agenda of the tobacco industry without disclosing that they were funded by Phillip Morris. Indeed, Heartland still claims to defend the rights of smokers, a ploy long used by the tobacco industry to keep themselves out of the spotlight.
Back in March the think tank organized its second international conference for skeptics. At the time I noted that in 2007 the think tank's President, Joseph L. Bast stated that "gifts from all energy companies -- coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear" accounted for less than five percent of the group's budget. While it may sound like a small amount, it still represented approximately $260,000.
No sooner was the March conference over than Heartland announced that it was organizing another, to be held in Washington on Tuesday June 2. For the March conference, Heartland insisted that "no corporate sponsorships or dollars earmarked for the event were solicited or accepted." Interestingly, there is no equivalent statement on the web page for the latest conference.The real impetus for calling the latest conference at such short notice is the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill, which is wending its way through Congress.
The speakers at the latest conference, which includes veteran skeptics such as Richard Lindzen and Patrick Michaels, are not likely to say much that they haven't said before. In a recent interview, leading climate scientist Stephen H. Schneider commented that the skeptics "have very few mainstream climate scientists who publish original research in climate refereed journals with them -- a petroleum geologist's opinion on climate science is a as good as a climate scientist's opinion on oil reserves. So petitions sent to hundreds of thousands of earth scientists are frauds. If these guys think they are 'winning,' why don't they try to take on face to face real climatologists at real meetings -- not fake ideology shows like Heartland Institute -- but with those with real knowledge -- because they'd be slaughtered in public debate by Trenberth, Santer, Hansen, Oppenheimer, Allen, Mitchell, even little ol' me. It’s easy to blog, easy to write op-eds in the Wall Street Journal."
But the purpose of the Heartland Institute's conference is not about "real science," as most people understand it. Instead, its conference is more about maintaining the rage of the hard-core skeptics and their supporters in the hope that any legislation that emerges from Congress will be so compromised that it will make little if any difference in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
What the coal and oil lobby know is that the nature of what is agreed to by the Congress will play a major role in determining what the Obama administration will agree to in negotiations over the successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol to be discussed at the COP15 meeting in Copenhagen in December. As Todd Stern, the U.S. special envoy on climate change, stated at the conclusion of a recent meeting of the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate, "an issue for us is always [reaching] an agreement... that can produce consensus internationally and it can also be approved back at home."
It would be easy to dismiss the Heartland Institute's conference as just another fringe event. However, with the Democrats having only a narrow majority in the Senate, a couple of votes would be enough to water down the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill even further. Added to that is the fact that for a treaty to be ratified, two-thirds of Senate members must support it.
Comments
Thank you Bob Burton!
I very much appreciate your PRWatch posts covering the climate inactivism effort.
Global Warming
But what if the scientists are right? What will the world be like in 100 years? There's a very long history in American and English literature of real social change coming about because of a powerful novel. Fiction may be the best way to seriously explore issues that generate so much controversy. It's too easy to deny reality otherwise.
Truth is where you find it.
Perhaps you should read some of the articles provided through the Non-governmental Institute referenced in the conference. Over 9,000 phd's have signed onto the petition rejecting the anthropogenic climate change theory. Environmental alarmist like Al Gore are supported without question in your blog, but your mind closes when evidence appears from other sources.
I am registered professional engineer with some understanding of the issues, and I believe politics has surplanted science in the United Nations and in your blog.
Oregon Institute petition debunked
We debunk the Oregon Institute petition on our SourceWatch site:
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine
The climate skeptics are full of sound and fury (and misleading type fonts), but it's clear, upon closer examination, that their arguments signify nothing.
No sense of irony?
So politics never supplanted science in the Bush administration, whose leftover messes we're now dealing with?
http://www.ucsusa.org/
Here's where the deniers say, "But most of most of UCS's members aren't even climate scientists." Well, yes. That's just because political subversion of science was hardly limited to climate science.
Ph.D.s?
Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition—one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages.
Is 2.1% enough of a sample
Is 2.1% enough of a sample enough?? And the Petition is actually signed by 31,478 scientists... so is 0.09 % a statistically valid sample???
More on Heartland's conference
Bob: Thanks for the update on the Heartland meeting. I'm seeking more information on Heartland and climate change for Cult of Green (a blog on the media and the environment). Would you (or anyone else with good info who reads this) send me an e-mail at ken@atlantaunsheltered.com or via the comments section at the following post (which is on Heartland)? http://cultofgreen.com/2009/06/02/and-now-a-word-from-our-greenwashers/
Read the information for yourself
Scientists from places like MIT, Harvard, UVa, Penn, Rochester, Pasteur Institute have posted their presentations with their data indicating the AGW scare is vastly over-rated, and the proposed solutions to a non-problem are more damaging than the worse-case effects of AGW itself. Just go to http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork08/newyork2008-ppt.html and see for yourself- if you're not afraid of the data.
Meanwhile, the U. of Albany is confronting fraud allegations against one of their professors who provided data to one of the cornerstone papers of AGW oft-cited by Real Climate and similar AGW pseudo-science/panic sites.
This is not solely a political debate- fraud and non-verifiable data will eventually be outed, no matter the amount of funding from whatever sources. And we will know more clearly (as anyone looking at their thermometer lately could tell you) that AGW is a scam...
It might help the deniers'
It might help the deniers' cause if they could agree on what to deny -- global warming itself or just human causation of same. The very fact that the coal industry is running such a lavish campaign touting "sequestration" of CO2 from power plants suggests that you may find yourself left behind if you stick to the no-warming position too long.
So "Piltdown Man" was a hoax. Would Heartland have us believe that disproves the whole theory of evolution?
Actually, that would be consistent with your statement,
It's pleasantly cool here in New England, but my cousin in New Mexico tells me he's roasting. Whose thermometer would you have us judge by? If one person can pronounce AGW a scam with one thermometer reading, what's the point of that conference? Is that the quality of the work at Heartland?
You Are Confusing Weater With CLIMATE
"...anyone looking at their thermometer lately could tell you... that AGW is a scam"
That ONE sentence demonstrates your complete lack of understading of CLIMATE CHANGE, human induced or otherwise.
Additionally, in my 50 years on this earth, I HAVE seen a demonstrable warming trend where i live. I, previously (say 1990), could not reliably overwinter rosemary in the garden - now I can. I also now have petunias that re-seed themselves and even petunia PLANTS that overwinter for several years at a time! The spring warmups start earlier but the last frosts haven't changed much. It's anecdotal but empirical.
Please see Urban Heat Island
Please see Urban Heat Island (UHI) for more info on why Denver, NYC, or a major metro area may see higher surface temperature... or... you could just sit on some pavement and then try out a nice grassy hill... which is warmer??? and why???
You Are Confusing Weater With CLIMATE
Ditto Burt.
Here in California I've noticed the odd changes in my garden lately too.
My tomatoes, roses and other semi yearlies live and bloom the whole year.
Other crops and flowers bloom either too early or too late in the year.
Same goes for the plants in my local parks.
Glad (but sad) to know I'm not the only one who noticed this.
Good to know but....
Your organization's mission statement says:
CMD's mission is to promote transparency and an informed debate by exposing corporate spin and government propaganda and by engaging the public in collaborative, fair and accurate reporting.
As you seem committed to fair reporting, I was just wondering if there is a similar article regarding the IPCC on this site, analysing the political and financial forces involved.
Thanks Bob!
Thanks Bob for such an insightful bash on those nasty "deniers". With $6B and growing in federal outlays to climate alarmist groups, a donation of $260K from fossil fuel industries seems minute.
This debate isn't about climate, is it Bob? C'mon! Come clean! With so much potential treasure whether via legislative means or an endangerment finding, who could resist? Never under-estimate the opportunity in alarmism. We could debate the "science" forever. The only certain outcome in a Waxman-Markey strategy is an impoverished nation. Cooler weather than would be otherwise? No one can predict the weather next Sunday...try 2100. Sounds kinda' iffy. Study up on your Mandarin or Portugese Bob! One day they may have openings for a lefty op-ed guy like you! Not soon however, they're too busy making money.
Who's too busy making money?
Only if you ignore the fact that this "donation" is merely a tiny fraction of what the fossil fuel industries have spent over years and decades to reassure the public that everything is just fine. It bears the same relation to the industry's total propaganda effort as a single thermometer reading bears to decades of global climate tracking.
Never underestimate the opportunity in reassurance!
Is Heartland a 'think tank' or a 'PR tank'
Bob: Your coverage of this event encouraged me to look into it as well. In my own reporting for Mother Nature Network, I discovered a fascinating study by three sociologists that puts meat on the argument that these anti-environmental "think" tanks aren't research organizations at all. http://cultofgreen.com/2009/06/05/media-mayhem-a-plague-of-think-tanks/ Thanks for following this!
Whether global warming is
Whether global warming is real or not, or whether it is caused by co2 can be debated. But the fact remains that because of this debate all other environmental issues get sidelined. There is a huge dead zone in the gulf of Mexico from all the pollution coming down the Mississippi but it never gets talked about because its not related to the global warming debate. Its okay to bulldoze entire mountains to extract small amounts of low grade coal because now we can burn it cleaner. All the environmental problems will be solved by setting up a giant ponzi scheme selling carbon futures. With all the propaganda from all sides of debate coming in its hard to find out whats really going on meanwhile more and more animals go extinct. Where have all the environmentalists gone? They're too busy arguing over global warming.
Oh really?
That's the lamest, stupidest straw man I've ever seen. No one claims cap-and-trade will solve "all environmental problems." Not everyone even agrees that cap-and-trade will help very much just to control CO2. And no one who is alarmed by the threat of global warming denies the Gulf dead zone, the destructiveness of mountaintop removal, or any of the other environmental ravages that threaten us, or believes we can afford to ignore them while we deal with greenhouse gas emissions.
I think you're just playing the outraged enviro to make yourself seem credible in trying prop up the belief that the reality of global warming with CO2 as its prime cause is still "debatable." I, for one, don't buy it.
This issue has become
This issue has become emotionally charged, and many people seem to place blind belief in the global warming problem as it has been presented to us, which are signs of a well-crafted public relations campaign. References to global warming (or climate change) are now everywhere you look, keeping people frightened and guilty. The emphasis on carbon, one of the most common elements in life on this planet, as the main bad guy is absurd and scary. Science is pretty clear on the fact that Earth's climate has constantly gone through cycles of warming and cooling. This does not mean, however, that certain people are not causing damage and destruction to the environment and to ourselves through industrial pollution, massive use of toxic chemicals, and now genetic engineering. It does not mean that burning fossil fuels is good for us, or that clean sources of energy, like solar power, should not be developed and implemented. I think that this whole issue and the way it has been presented and used to manipulate public opinion is only obscuring the reality of our situation and the steps we need to take to protect and promote life on this planet.
The emphasis on carbon, one
So, carbon is harmless because it's such a common element?
Okay then, let's combine an atom of carbon with one of another very common element, nitrogen, which comprises 78 percent of the earth's atmosphere. Then tack on an atom of the most abundant element in the entire universe, namely hydrogen.
Take a deep breath -- you've just made hydrogen cyanide!
I agree, expressions like "carbon footprint" can be confusing -- they've apparently confused you. We're really talking about carbon dioxide, CO2, which is necessary in minute quantities, but will do us in unless we rein in our runaway production of it.
As for PR campaigns, it's the deniers who are spending the big bucks on "obscuring the reality of our situation and the steps we need to take to protect and promote life on this planet."
Has carbon ever combined
Has carbon ever combined with hydrogen in the atmosphere to create hydrogen cyanide? I think the point being made is that the issue of global warming has put cage over all the other environmental issues and has created an illusion that if we solve global warming we solve all the environmental problems.
What about carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide (remember acid rain?), nitrogen oxide, ozone, and hydrocarbons. All of these gases released in auto emissions and yet we don't even talk about these threats to the environment anymore.
No, you're missing the point.
Here's what he said:
I'm saying it's scary that this person can make the absurd statement that climate scientists are making the "common element carbon" the bad guy, when they're really talking about a compound of carbon, namely CO2, which is quite scarce in the atmosphere, except that humans have started pumping it out in ever more climatologically significant amounts in recent decades.
And once again, just because climate scientists are most concerned with the overarching challenge of global warming, that doesn't mean they arent concerned about other environmental issues. For example, in case you missed it, James Hanson got arrested while protesting mountaintop-removal coal mining recently.
On the other hand, if we don't deal with global warming effectively, and soon, there just might not be enough of us left to produce much more of that other bad stuff:
http://tinyurl.com/m5662o
Daryl Hannah got arrested
Daryl Hannah got arrested too along with many others. I am glad to see so many take a stand against such horrible destruction.
The Irony I am seeing is that coal seems to be getting a new lease on life because of clean coal technology. Politicians and coal barons claim it can be burned cleaner, and, therefore reduce its impact on global warming. They give us more environmental destruction and get away with it because they can use the global warming argument and give the illusion that they are doing their part to reduce harmful emissions.
Carbon dioxide
I am almost out of patience with the world-reformers and their "global warming" theory, which I consider deliberate hoax. I have noticed that these same folks are now calling it "climate change" to defend their collectivist position that it is all the fault of people, who need to be regulated. How distressing to find that the earth has been cooling for about the last ten years!
Carbon dioxide is a bio-friendly gas, unlike sulfur dioxide. In horticulture and agriculture it is added to the atmosphere in greenhouses because it increases crop yields. Earth's atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have varied over time for as far back as scientists can extrapolate. Increases in carbon dioxide levels have always been associated with good things, like more plant growth – and has never been shown to have a bad effect on anything.
The human respiratory center in the floor of the fourth ventricle is stimulated by carbon dioxide dissolved in the blood. If these "humanitarian" planners ever succeed in reducing carbon dioxide atmospheric levels to zero, some of us would probably forget to breathe.
Now you can stop feeling guilty about breathing.
You can trust me on that. I am a retired physician and biomedical researcher.
If these "humanitarian"
You should be careful making jokes like that; climate-change deniers less well informed than you might easily take it seriously and make fools of themselves parroting the claim that "humanitarian planners want to reduce CO2 levels to zero." After all, a retired physician and biomedical researcher said it -- trust him!
So, for the record: the best outcome anyone ever hoped for has never been any reduction of CO2 in our atmosphere, merely limiting its increase to amounts that will produce less than disastrous results for the world's population as global temperatures rise.
And it is happening. Your fear of "collectivism" seems to have focused you too narrowly on individual ventricles.
Once again, you display your
Once again, you display your fine skills in twisting remarks around and interpreting them in a way which deliberately obscures the point that was originally being made, albeit in a brief, limited way because most of us have work to do and can't afford to sit around commenting all day. This comment relates to the public relations campaign which has insinuated itself into the media, the schools, environmental action and political action groups, etc., which has commonly promoted the use of the terms "carbon", and "carbon footprint" as catch-words. But even if you want to talk about carbon dioxide, I think that in reality we have many more ominous problems we need to face. This issue, like the whole Democrat/Republican or left/right split, is another way in which we are being misled, confused, divided, and sidetracked.
Carbon dioxide is exhaled by
Carbon dioxide is exhaled by mammals, taken up by plants, released by decaying organic material to be recycled in on of the many natural cycles that are necessary for life on this planet. Anyway, who are you? You seem to be very skilled at taking people's comments out of context and then trying to make them look confused or stupid. What is your agenda? Do you have any ideas of your own to share, or is your task limited to picking apart and criticizing other people and their sincere opinions?
Comments
It is interesting to watch those who look at data and see holes described as 'skeptics" while those who look at data and draw conclusions with the holes as "scientists". A real scientist would never close a discussion on something as complex as climate change and declare it conclusive and thus action must be taken. A real scientist would not support a solution set that includes a cap and trade scheme that does not solve the problem described. Only a politician would declare this topic concluded and this solution objective.
A real scientist would not
You sound like a real expert on what "real scientists" would or wouldn't do.
If politicians won't go for a solution set that Wall Street can't make billions and trillions off of, that's not scientists' doing. It's our magnificent free enterprise system, that has made America the greatest...etc., etc., etc.
Converative Skeptics
The GW skeptics are almost entirely conservatives. Given that historically conservatives have always been on the wrong side of iany ssue starting with the American Revolution and followed by slavery, unions, women's right to vote, child labor, evolution, social securty, civil rights and envionmental regulation - why would anyone think they got it right this time? In the end, the next generation of conservatives always has to disavow the "old" views. It is inherent in their nature not to let rational thought interfere with their black box world.