Global Warming: Man or Myth?

Scientists can also wear their citizen hats

Heartland Institute’s Non-Experts: “You Experts Are All Wrong!”

with 27 comments

Excerpts from the press release about Heartland Institute’s latest laugh-fest:

“The Heartland Institute will host its sixth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-6) on June 30 and July 1 in Washington, DC. Heartland will be joined in Washington by dozens of think tank cosponsors and hundreds of scientists in an effort to restore the scientific method to its rightful place in the debate over the causes, consequences, and implications of climate change.”

“The theme of the conference, Restoring the Scientific Method, acknowledges the fact that claims of scientific certainty and predictions of climate catastrophes are based on post-normal science, which substitutes claims of consensus for the scientific method. This choice has had terrible consequences for science and society.”

“The scientists speaking at this conference, and the hundreds more who are expected to attend, are committed to restoring the scientific method. This means abandoning the failed hypothesis of man-made climate change, and using real science and sound economics to improve our understanding of the planet’s ever-changing climate.”

This, despite the fact that 97-98% of publishing climate scientists and virtually every international body of science state that climate is changing and that human activities, especially emissions of heat-trapping gases such as carbon dioxide, are the primary cause of this change.

The 16 speakers listed in the table below are supposedly going to restore the scientific method and show us all why human-caused climate change is a failed hypothesis because all of those darned experts are just plain wrong!  A summary of their peer-reviewed climate science publications after 2005 appears below. Anybody who has not published after 2005 is in no position to speak. Papers in Energy & Environment were not counted because many do not consider that publication to be a rigorous peer-reviewed science journal. See: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/02/ee-threatens-a-libel-suit/

Even if included, there were only a few people listed below that would have had one or two more papers added to their total. Excluding E&E did not significantly change the results.

SPEAKER

# OF CLIMATE SCIENCE PAPERS SINCE 2005

Timothy F. Ball, Ph.D.

0

Larry Bell

0

Alan Carlin, Ph.D.

0

Robert “Bob” Carter, Hon. FRSNZ

5

Steve Goreham

0

Christopher Horner, J.D.

0

Craig Idso, Ph.D.

0

Robert O. Mendelsohn, Ph.D.

[35]

Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D.

3

Harrison Schmitt, Ph.D.

0

David Schnare

0

S. Fred Singer, Ph.D.

2

Willie Soon, Ph.D.

4

Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D.

7

David G. Tuerck, Ph.D.

0

Anthony Watts

1

[35] Dr. Mendelsohn’s 35 papers do not address the causes of climate change but instead are focused on agricultural and economical impacts of climate change.  He cannot speak to the “failed hypothesis of man-made climate change”.

9/16 (56%) have ZERO climate science related peer-reviewed papers since 2005 so they should just sit down.

Look at the remaining people in the list above, try not to chuckle, and ask yourself if you think these people are in any position to overturn the overwhelming evidence for man-made climate change.

About these ads

Written by Scott Mandia

May 19, 2011 at 10:11 am

Posted in Uncategorized

27 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. “restore the scientific method to its rightful place in the debate over the causes, consequences, and implications of climate change.”
    Isn’t this also a philosophical issue? How many of these people have published ANY papers in any philosophical journals (let alone the most respected ones) on philosophy of science or logic? Let alone on the most current thinking of what “scientific method” is? What a setup.

    bobbyy53snake

    May 19, 2011 at 12:01 pm

    • I agree fully! What a bunch of industry funded crooks.

      I aggree,

      August 18, 2011 at 6:13 pm

  2. Thanks for citing this. I just saw a google ad on this conference. My prediction is that this conference will make headlines in my local news where I’ll have to proper context. Thanks for helping me to prepare.
    jg

    jg

    May 19, 2011 at 1:12 pm

  3. “committed to restoring the scientific method. This means abandoning the failed hypothesis of man-made climate change”

    These sentences are so contradictory it is nauseating. They plan to restore the scientific method (sure) – and propose the best way to do this is completely abandon the *theory* (not hypothesis) that is supported by the most (all?) evidence AND is the only hypothesis *let alone theory* to stand up to any legitimate peer review.

    Give me a break! How stupid / bought-and-paid-for / ideologically blinded do you have to buy this premise?

    Nicholas Berini

    May 19, 2011 at 1:22 pm

  4. Then there’s Bob Carter who brought us such classics as:

    Carter, R.M. 2008 “Knock, knock: where is the evidence for dangerous human-caused global warming? Economic Analysis & Policy” Journal of the Economic Society of Australia – Queensland), 32(2), 107-202.

    VIDEO INTERVIEW – The Glenn Beck Show
    Global warming: was it ever a crisis
    Spotlight on Science, Fox TV News, March 10, 2009        

    VIDEO LECTURE – The problem is NATURAL climate change,stupid!    
    Heartland
Climate Conference (Heartland Institute), New York, March 10, 2009   

    citizenschallenge

    May 19, 2011 at 9:44 pm

  5. Climate zombies are planning to crash the party. Anyone who wants to join in the fun please get in touch!

    Gail Zawacki

    May 20, 2011 at 9:02 am

    • Are you one of those “Climate zombies,” Gail, eager to “crash the party”? You do realize that announcing plans to disrupt our conference on an open thread is probably not a good idea if subterfuge is your aim.

      But since you’ve been kind enough to say so publicly, how about sharing the names of the fellow “zombies” and “party crashers” you wish to put on our guest list? No use hiding now, eh?

      Jim Lakely
      Director of Communications
      The Heartland Institute

      Jim Lakely

      May 23, 2011 at 8:06 pm

  6. I thought the Heartland Institute attendees would approve of so-called ‘post normal science’?

    Mr February

    May 23, 2011 at 6:07 am

  7. Gail,

    You must be using the term “party crashers” in a manner inconsistent with its historic use. Most people who “crash” an event are not there to simply enjoy it in peace. But, suit yourself.

    I’m aware you have registered as a blogger, and maybe we will meet. For what it might be worth to you, education is our aim, as well. If you attend and listen to the presentations, you might learn something.

    As for the blog posts you shared … you seem to be working under the fallacious assumption (as many on the left do) that Heartland is funded by the Koch Brothers. Alas, they have not contributed in years (though we’d be happy to enjoy their support). So the “zombies” and “crashers” might want to save some valuable paint, ink and cardboard signs by picking more relevant targets.

    Best,
    Jim

    Jim Lakely

    May 23, 2011 at 8:49 pm

    • The point of the links was not that I think Koch and Heartland are in any way connected financially.

      They both however indulge in climate zombie promulgation – in other words, they repeat old denier canards that have been effectively killed repeatedly by expert scientists in the field, and yet they resurrect them from the dead.

      http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/party_crasher

      Someone who attempts and often gains entry to a party or club to which they were not invited, often using social engineering techniques. The party crasher usually tries to blend into the party so as not to be kicked out

      Gail Zawacki

      May 23, 2011 at 9:03 pm

    • Hey Jim,

      Alas, they [the Kochs] have not contributed in years (though we’d be happy to enjoy their support).

      Or do you mean the Kochs have not directly funded Heartland in years, as far as you know? :) :)

      (And while you’re here, are you still advocating that laptop manufacturers should control what users can or can’t do on their laptops?)

      * * *

      Gail Zawacki:

      Instead of (or in addition to) dressing up as climate zombies, you might also want to consider asking the ‘conference’ folks some pointed questions, especially in the presence of media churnalists such as Andrew Revkin — and I have a few ideas. I hope folks like Jim Lakely above will actually be eager to “educate” us when that happens. :)

      – frank

    • Heartland’s funding can be researched here:

      Sourcewatch – http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute

      Exxonsecrets – http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41

      DeSmog Blog – http://www.desmogblog.com/taxonomy/term/1634

      Media Matters – http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Heartland_Institute/overview

      When the Kochs, ExxonMobil, and others distribute money and then that money is spread around to other groups, it is difficult to know how much an organization such as Heartland is receiving from fossil fuel-related stakeholders.

      The money trail does not indict Heartland as much as their own publications about climate change “science”. Stick to what is printed and what their people state publicly because those words make it clear that the Heartland Emperor has no clothes.

      Scott Mandia

      May 24, 2011 at 8:10 am

      • Thank you Scott. I did also find this 2009 list of Heartland conference sponsors, many of whom receive direct contributions from Kochs, Exxon and Scaife, so it sort of begs the question of how much Heartland funding originates from fossil fuel sources.

        http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institutes-2009-climate-conference-new-york-funding-history-sponsors

        However, I am not interested primarily in that issue and in fact it was Mr. Jim Lakely who introduced the connection or lack thereof.

        My motivation in going to the conference has much more to do with the original topic of the post – which is the caliber and credentials of the invited speaker list.

        I’m not a scientist but I know enough to realize that us lay people should rely on the scientists for the facts. If 98% of all neurosurgeons and every medical school and research institution in the world told me I had a brain tumor that needed an emergency operation, I would not seek a chiropractor or homeopathic remedies instead. I would submit to whatever radical, painful, expensive and drastic treatment the trained oncologists recommend (unless I had a death wish).

        I’d like to know why members of the Heartland Institute think their response to the climate change equivalent of that scenario is appropriate.

        Gail Zawacki

        May 24, 2011 at 8:31 am

    • RE: the term “party crashers”. As far as I know (and I looked it up, too*) it simply means to attend a party without having been invited. For reference, see “Wedding Crashers”.

      How can you not know that after the big story a few years back about the Salahis crashing the party at the White House? Were you under the impression that they trashed the place?

      * I highly recommend that you do this before reprimanding someone else for getting it wrong.

      pough

      June 5, 2011 at 11:17 am

  8. Frank, any suggestions are welcome. This effort to venture into the Heartland territory is still shaping up as a work in progress, which I hope will ultimately be both enlightening and entertaining – in my own humble emulation of the best gonzo journalistic tradition exemplified by the original, late, great, Hunter S. Thompson:

    http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/2011/05/kentucky-derby-is-decadent-and-depraved.html

    I will try to avoid classified substances, however.

    Gail Zawacki

    May 24, 2011 at 7:34 am

  9. Jim,
    Between trying to beat up Mann et al. and Santer et al. are you folks going to find any time to examine the 10 Indicators of the Human Fingerprints on Climate Change? ~

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html

    How about the 10 key climate indicators (or as I like saying components of climate) all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable ~

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-key-climate-indicators-point-to-same-finding-global-warming-is-unmistakable.html?

    http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html

    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    How about the crazy weather – gonna find anytime to consider how many pearls of catastrophic events are needed to be added to the necklace before you folks start questioning your Profits Über Alles mind freeze?
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    How about the Wegman plagiarism scandal?
    Are you folks going to consider the boundaries of plagiarism? ~
    How about rearranging and modifying the plagiarized sections, to say what one want them to say ~ Will the ethics of that be consider by you find upstanding pillars of the business community?

    PS. One directional skepticism is Denial.

    citizenschallenge

    May 24, 2011 at 5:05 pm

  10. Sorry about the typos… but to be clear here’s that last important point again.
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    How about the Wegman plagiarism scandal?
    Are you folks going to consider the boundaries of plagiarism? ~

    How about rearranging and modifying the plagiarized sections, to say what one wants them to say ~ Will the ethics of that be consider by you fine upstanding pillars of the business community?

    PS. One directional skepticism is Denial.

    citizenschallenge

    May 24, 2011 at 5:12 pm

  11. Hey, they have Fred Singer. He’s an expert on everything.

    climate change
    CFCs
    DDT
    asbestos
    tobacco
    acid rain

    Sailrick

    May 26, 2011 at 11:43 pm

    • Merchants of Doubt, by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M Conway. 978-1-59691-610-4 An excellent (and highly educational) read.

      pendantry

      May 27, 2011 at 12:57 am

  12. Has anyone noticed, how most of the contrarian scientists are, how shall I phrase it, “not in the first flush of youth”? In about 20 years or so, the Heartland aren’t going to have any scientific presenters at all – they’ll either all be dead or unable to remember what they’re there for.

    CountryBumpkin

    May 27, 2011 at 6:55 am

  13. pendantry:
    Merchants of Doubt, by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M Conway. 978-1-59691-610-4 An excellent (and highly educational) read.

    ditto
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    Good point, CountryBumpkin

    The older fat cats that only have ideology to live for ~
    to heck with reality and the future they are going to leave behind for the youngsters of the world.

    I also notice how Jim Lakely ~ Director of Communications for Heartland Institute seems to have gone silent, those dudes are so predicable.

    Yo, Jim: Heartland and “scientific method” go together like hell and snowballs.

    citizenschallenge

    May 27, 2011 at 3:46 pm

  14. Heartland spin doctor James Taylor now claims that giving speeches at (what’s essentially) a PR event is a form of “openness and transparency”.

    Read and laugh:

    http://www.heartland.org/full/30078/TAYLOR_Dont_Look_Behind_the_Green_Curtain.html

    – frank

  15. [...] Heartland Institute’s Non-Experts: “You Experts Are All Wrong!” [...]

  16. [...] Heartland Institute’s “experts” are not. To name a few: [...]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,473 other followers

%d bloggers like this: