Heartland Institute Building Anti-Science Curriculum

[AndyH]

http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/02/22/is-catastrophic-global-warming-like-the-millenium-bug-a-mistake/

"At a public meeting in the Commons, the climate scientist Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT made a number of declarations that unsettle the claim that global warming is backed by “settled science”. They’re not new, but some of them were new to me."

from the comments:

"...<snip>

Lindzen is one of the very few discredited scientists that are paid very well by the oil industry to spread a politically-motivated message. His theories are consistently proven wrong by real research.

You know better than this, Herm - how many times do we have to do this? Shall we run down the top 10 denial myths and the top six 'scientists' that spout them?

From one of last year's posts:

I finally got to page 236 today [Sep 2011] in my slow read of Merchants of Doubt and think this section fits here:

The network of right-wing foundations, the corporations that fund them, and the journalists who echo their claims have created a tremendous problem for American science. A recent academic study found that of the fifty-six "environmentally skeptical" books published in the 1990s, 92 percent were linked to these right-wing foundations (only thirteen were published in the 1980s, and 100 percent were linked to the foundations). Scientists have faced an ongoing misrepresentation of scientific evidence and historical facts that brands them as public enemies - even mass murderers - on the basis of phony facts.

 

[BRBarian]

Lindzen is one of the very few discredited scientists...

You don't need to take the bait. Herm already knows that he is FOS.

Think of a GW "experiment" as an arrow in on an archery range. Most of those arrows hit the global warming bullseye, but a few go astray. Some arrows even suggest that there's no global warming or maybe global cooling.

Scientists look at the whole picture and say "Yep.. Global warming is real." Anyone looking at the data with honest eyes agrees. It's not incorrect to talk about those arrows that went astray, but to try to make policy from those is a wholly dishonest endeavor.

 

[AndyH]

Lindzen is one of the very few discredited scientists...

You don't need to take the bait. Herm already knows that he is FOS.

You're right.

Think of a GW "experiment" as an arrow in on an archery range. Most of those arrows hit the global warming bullseye, but a few go astray. Some arrows even suggest that there's no global warming or maybe global cooling.

Scientists look at the whole picture and say "Yep.. Global warming is real." Anyone looking at the data with honest eyes agrees. It's not incorrect to talk about those arrows that went astray, but to try to make policy from those is a wholly dishonest endeavor.

Excellent analogy. If only the target didn't look like this:

 

[Fabio]

Funny thing is that also reality and facts are of "leftish" persuasion.

.. hard to say since many historians are of the leftish persuasion.

 

[Herm]

Funny thing is that also reality and facts are of "leftish" persuasion.

You need to adjust your self bias a bit.

 

[evnow]

You need to adjust your self bias a bit.

Think about it for a second.

How come all the "skepticism" on the right for science is exactly when it offends their ideology ?
- Anthropogenic Global Warming
- Evolution

A million other things are not ever challenged.

 

[Fabio]

It's hard to keep centered when you guys keep shifting more and more to the right (and this opinion comes from famous liberals like Jeb Bush).

Funny thing is that also reality and facts are of "leftish" persuasion.

You need to adjust your self bias a bit.

 

[Fabio]

Even more liberal than Historians are Scientists: only 6 % of scientists are conservative ( http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/)

Before you cry foul, you need to remember that IQ has been proven to be in strong correlation with ideology http://news.yahoo.com/low-iq-conservative-beliefs-linked-prejudice-180403506.html

... and the vast left wing conspiracy keeps growing

.. hard to say since many historians are of the leftish persuasion.

 

[Herm]

Even more liberal than Historians are Scientists: only 6 % of scientists are conservative

This reassures me on historians.. you ask for a bit of proven predictions on a scientific theory and suddenly you become a pariah... like burning the koran over in Afghanistan.

 

[thankyouOB]

this wont help herm get out of his own way, but some of you may find it interesting on the Peter Gleick thingee:

http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2012/02/25/one-girl-one-cup/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[Fabio]

Don't worry, there will be a job at Fox News waiting for them

... and suddenly you become a pariah... like burning the koran over in Afghanistan.

 

[BRBarian]

... you ask for a bit of proven predictions on a scientific theory and suddenly you become a pariah...

Uhh. No. You attack an entire branch of science... claims of conspiracy, duplicity, profiteering, faked-consensus....

In fact, by such an attack, you attack all science and all scientists and the scientific method itself.

Couple this with clear evidence of a well funded FUD campaign by polluters, and parrots like you helping that campaign...

THAT is what makes you a most hated pariah.

 

[CWO4Mann]

I hope the day when you can hide crony capitalism under a thin veil of religious fundamentalism will come soon to an end.

"Science is a matter of faith, didn't ya know?"

We all should be so fortunate. Zealots are always going to cloak their demonology in some sort of religious fervor. I am surprised that there are so many scientists (sic) who fail to believe their own research. The whole climate business has unearthed every sort of deny-er and anti-establishment actor possible. Yet they simply refuse to believe.

Of course, we can use religious fundamentalism to excuse ANYthing ... I mean it is "God's Will" , right? I wonder what God has to say about all of these?

 

[thankyouOB]

http://www.alternet.org/story/154252/the_republican_brain%3A_why_even_educated_conservatives_deny_science_--_and_reality/?page=entire" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
An interesting analysis of why educated Repubs have an odd take on global warming and its science.


Someone had sent me a 2008 Pew report documenting the intense partisan divide in the U.S. over the reality of global warming.. It’s a divide that, maddeningly for scientists, has shown a paradoxical tendency to widen even as the basic facts about global warming have become more firmly established....
Buried in the Pew report was a little chart showing the relationship between one’s political party affiliation, one’s acceptance that humans are causing global warming, and one’s level of education. And here’s the mind-blowing surprise: For Republicans, having a college degree didn’t appear to make one any more open to what scientists have to say. On the contrary, better-educated Republicans were more skeptical of modern climate science than their less educated brethren. Only 19 percent of college-educated Republicans agreed that the planet is warming due to human actions, versus 31 percent of non-college-educated Republicans.

pew report here:
http://www.people-press.org/2008/05/08/a-deeper-partisan-divide-over-global-warming/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[Herm]

this wont help herm get out of his own way, but some of you may find it interesting on the Peter Gleick thingee:

Yes, the Peter Gleick McArthur genius grant recipient that got caught faking a memo from the skeptics side.. why did he feel the need to do this since science and the consensus is on his side?.. he has hired a lawyer and a crisis manager.

From the Weekly Standard:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/why-climate-skeptics-are-winning_631915.html?page=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Why the Climate Skeptics Are Winning
Too many of their opponents are intellectual thugs.

"More than a few observers have asked why anyone should trust Gleick’s scientific judgment if his judgment about how to deal with climate skeptics is so bad. -Gleick’s defense of his motives would be laughable if it weren’t so pathetic: “My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts (often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated) to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved.” "

 

[BRBarian]

Peter Gleick McArthur genius grant recipient that got caught faking a memo from the skeptics side..

Ha! According to whom? No reputable news source has made that claim.

It's FAR more likely that Heartland just doesn't want to own that damaging memo they sent out... caught with their pants down.

 

[Fabio]

Here's a list of articles in the Weekly Standard by the same author (Steven F Hayward):

"President Solyndra
And his mean green wealth-wasting machine."

"Book Review: Warm and Fuzzy
Penetrating the fog of the climate campaigners."

"How to Think About Oil Spills
The perils of overreaction."

"Earth Day Blues
The rise and fall of the environmental movement."

"The EPA's Power Grab
The climate campaigners play their trump card, but it may turn out to be a joker."

Maybe it's me, but are the opinions of this writer on climate issues (and reality as a whole) just a little bit biased?!?

Reading the article there is no evidence that Peter Gleick faked anything, just mr. Hayward saying that he did.
The lawyers he retained are because he's facing a "civil action against the person who extracted its documents under a false identity"

On the other hand, there is mathematical evidence (from a study funded by the Koch bros) that GW is real -- it's a repeatable experiment, like the ones you claim are missing from the debate.

Yes, the Peter Gleick McArthur genius grant recipient that got caught faking a memo from the skeptics side.. why did he feel the need to do this since science and the consensus is on his side?.. he has hired a lawyer and a crisis manager.

From the Weekly Standard:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/why-climate-skeptics-are-winning_631915.html?page=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[AndyH]

Here's a Texas conservative Republican evangelical climate scientist. This lady is real - unlike the folks at Heartland or their minions. Y'all enjoy! :lol:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHYhovvLQyc[/youtube]

"...the debate that's going on outside of science..."
"...the approach seems to be not so much to discredit the science or facts but to discredit the messenger..."

"..we are allowing our politics to inform our faith, rather than using our faith and our values to inform our politics..."


Don't give up, conservatives and conservationists alike - the nutters get most of the press but the important work marches on behind the scenes anyway.

 

[abasile]

Thanks for the video!

I noticed that A Climate for Change: Global Warming Facts for Faith-Based Decisions, the upcoming book by Katharine Hayhoe and Andrew Farley, is endorsed by the president of World Vision.

 

[Fabio]

thanks for the link, just when I thought there was a sensible conservative scientist I read in the preface: "We don't believe that life came from nothing or that humans evolved from apes."

My respect for Katharine was very short lived. Even Vatican scientists accept evolution as a proven fact.

Thanks for the video!

I noticed that A Climate for Change: Global Warming Facts for Faith-Based Decisions, the upcoming book by Katharine Hayhoe and Andrew Farley, is endorsed by the president of World Vision.