500 Scientists with Documented Doubts - about the Heartland Institute?
UPDATE: we have received notes now from 45 outraged scientists whose names appear on the list of 500. We've published more quotes here.
Dozens of scientists are demanding that their names be removed from a widely distributed Heartland Institute article entitled 500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares.
The article, by Hudson Institute director and Heartland "Senior Fellow" Dennis T. Avery (inset), purports to list scientists whose work contradicts the overwhelming scientific agreement that human-induced climate change is endangering the world as we know it.
DeSmogBlog manager Kevin Grandia emailed 122 of the scientists yesterday afternoon, calling their attention to the list. So far - in less than 24 hours - three dozen of those scientists had responded in outrage, denying that their research supports Avery's conclusions and demanding that their names be removed.
This is a brief taste of some of the responses that have been copied to the DeSmogBlog so
I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last 20 years arguing the opposite."
Dr. David Sugden. Professor of Geography, University of Edinburgh
I have NO doubts ..the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there."
Dr. Gregory Cutter, Professor, Department of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Old Dominion University
I don't believe any of my work can be used to support any of the statements listed in the article."
Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford
Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!!"
Dr. Svante Bjorck, Geo Biosphere Science Centre, Lund University
I'm outraged that they've included me as an "author" of this report. I do not share the views expressed in the summary."
Dr. John Clague, Shrum Research Professor, Department of Earth Sciences, Simon Fraser University
The DeSmogBlog will follow up with additional postings of scientist reaction as it comes in.
If you liked this story, please help us get the message out and vote for it on Digg.com by clicking here.
And if you REALLY liked this story, please consider helping us out with our research by sending along a small (or large) donation.
I note the absence of some prominent (in their minds) figures who feel that they have evidence that the warming is natural. Does this mean that even Avery doesn't believe them? Or, did he have some criterion for inclusion in the list of unwitting "co-authors", such as some evidence of original research in the area?
Tim Lambert et al are looking into this at Deltoid. There doesn't appear to be a single reason for all of the names being there, but a common thread seems to be "have written studies cited by inactivists". So in other words, if McKitrick and McIntyre challenge the consensus, and they cite Michael Mann, then Michael Mann *MUST* of course also deny the consensus! (Yes, he's on the list.)
Are their tactics *that* desperate?
Why on earth would you link McKitrick and McIntyre to this story? They have no involvment whatsover with this story.
Because they are not only listed, but their website is listed, and they have supported this conclusion in the past (see the websites listed, numerous entries).
And, let's see now, are they among people who are outraged that they are in the list? Not so far.
McIntyre, Steven, www.climateaudit.org
McKitrick, R., www.climateaudit.org
Paul, what have ANY of these people on the list got to do with it? The sheer lunacy of Avery listing them as co-authors defies comprehension.
Fern Mackenzie
Good job, Kevin,(School of Political Science) calling the Heartland Institute's bluff! They must figure that no one is going to actually take the time the track these people down.(School of Performing Arts) It will be interesting to see how many more of the 500 speak up as the word gets around.(School of Social Service)
So far not a big response, as I can see.
Robert from hard drive blog.
I wondered why there hadn't been many posts lately - Kevin's been busy emailing a lot of scientists - and what a good job too!
This is reminiscent of the BBC's Richard Black's work in finding there were few - if any - examples of research being turned down because it might "disprove" global warming. Also the Oregon Petition which proved to be a big fat lie.
It's definitely well worth looking into these claims - no doubt the person who posted that huge list on desmogblog last week will be kicking themselves.
And we have about 45 quotes still to put up! There is a lot of very angry scientists out there all demanding (at the least) that there names be taken off the list.
I smell a class action law suit... Nice.
Don't hold your breath, Shindig! These guys have the most amazing ability to hang on to their belief in these great long lists. I finally just stopped bothering with anyone who hauls out that pitiful Oregon petition.
Good job, Kevin, calling the Heartland Institute's bluff! They must figure that no one is going to actually take the time the track these people down. It will be interesting to see how many more of the 500 speak up as the word gets around.
Fern Mackenzie
on the list, because they're deceased, in some cases, for more than a decade.
the New Zealand "Department of Scientific and Industrial Research" hasn't existed for 20 years. How many other defunct institutions does it list? At least one of the scientists listed from NZ hasn't worked at the university he's listed with for 25 years.
Avery is a senior fellow at heartland AND hudson. This claptrap crap of an attempt to mislead appeared on both the hudson site and heartland's, so both are just as guilty! Just in case a suit comes out of this, both of these organizations should be included.
It would be interesting to go through the citations in "Unstoppable Global Warming . . ." and find out whether Avery makes reference to any recent work at all.
I am rather intrigued by Singer's & Avery's brass -- listing people whom they cited as co-authors! What a stroke of genius! All I have to do is cite the top guys in my field to claim them as co-authors! Brilliant!
Fern Mackenzie
I agree, Fern. I can't wait to get going on my next paper:
"Progress toward a unified theory of life, the universe and everything". Johnson, D., Godel, K., Escher, M.C., Bach, J.S., Hofstadter, D.R., Hansen, J., Darwin, C., Huxley, T.H., Adams, D., Popper, K., Wilson, E.O., Livingstone, D., Stanley, H.M., Henty, G.A., and Eriksson, L. J.I.R. 42: 1-31.
Don't forget Arthur Dent (and Dirk Gently).
Fern Mackenzie
Going after the Heartland Institute is like shooting fish in a barrel. Too easy a target.
Good one, Dan.
Good one! free online games
They left out Svante Arrhenius.
The list also includes someone who might be a colleague of Dr. John Clague at SFU, a certain "Mathews, R.W." As far as I know, there is no such person at SFU. But there is a Dr. Rolf W. Mathewes, who is a paleoecologist--and I would be surprised to find him supporting the Heartland document.
No doubt the sound of people more worried about their jobs and reputations than scientific accuracy.
Fred, been studying hammer-and-sickle patterns formed on cereal flakes? Or doing crossword puzzles to find traces of Bolshevism in Moby Dick?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://frankbi.wordpress.com/ International Journal of Inactivism
"Al `Fat Al' Gore [is fat]" -- Harold Pierce
He's trying to play his CDs backwards, but it doesn't work.
You mean Paul is dead?
(:
. . . in spite of Heather's best efforts (meow!)
Fern Mackenzie
. . . in spite of Heather's best efforts (meow!)
Fern Mackenzie
From the "Inhofe 400" to the "Heartland 500"
Good work here. I often find myself asking What, do they think we're stupid?
Of course they don't care. They're just hoping we're not paying attention.
Tom Schueneman
Editor/Publisher - Global Warming is Real Blog
www.globalwarmingisreal.com/blog
The reaction from the inactivist blogosphere... if you can call it a reaction:
http://tinyurl.com/4nrycd
Heheheheh.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://frankbi.wordpress.com/ International Journal of Inactivism
"Al `Fat Al' Gore [is fat]" -- Harold Pierce
Somehow "inactivist blogosphere" doesn't seem right.
Hmm... what do you suggest?
"Inactivist crapmill" sounds like a really bad mixed metaphor.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://frankbi.wordpress.com/ International Journal of Inactivism
"Al `Fat Al' Gore [is fat]" -- Harold Pierce
Inactivist blogocave? Inactivist blogosand? Inactivist blogodisk?
DE-activist echo chamber?
Fern Mackenzie
"Blogocave" has a nice ring to it. :)
Still undecided about "inactivists" vs. "deactivists", but I remember also proposing "reactivists" (which sounds a bit like "reactionaries")...
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://frankbi.wordpress.com/ International Journal of Inactivism
"Al `Fat Al' Gore [is fat]" -- Harold Pierce
So that's what clean coal looks like. Obviously this gives a new meaning to the word 'clean'. Except it's not clean as normally understood and meant by normal usage of the word.
Okay, so the IPCC has a trumped up number of 2500 scientists who all signed onto their report. We all know that isn't true. And you find a few on the list of 500.
There is 2 scientists from my country on this list, I suggest if you see someone from your country or institution on this list to enquire them about their relationship with this so called "heartland institute"
What country is that?
And by the way, I am outraged that they left out everyone from the National Resource Something Program.
Not Really Science People
Fern Mackenzie
I just checked out Bjorck, Svante, Lund University, Sweden from the "500 list" who is a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Science[1], he was also he chair of the geology section of said academy which wrote this in response to the IPCC report:
Klass V anser att den vetenskapliga basen för att bedöma klimatproblemet nu är så stabil att det motiverar omfattande satsningar för att utveckla metoder att begränsa utsläpp av växthusgaser och för att mildra negativa konsekvenser av pågående och kommande klimatförändringar.[2]
Quick translation to english:
Class V [the Geo. Science group] regards the scientific basis to judge the climate crisis is now so stable that it motivates vast investments to develop methods to lower emissions of green house gases and to soothe the negative consequences of current and future climate change.
I should probably drop him an e-mail if he hasn't already been asked. Is it any official list to tick of so we don't spam some of these scientists with multiple questions about the same thing?
1. http://www.kva.se/KVA_Root/eng/contact/contactdetail.asp?personID=4413
2. http://www.kva.se/KVA_Root/publications/academythink/07climate_group.pdf
10%....sounds like a conspiracy huh?
Ask the IPCC for their list of 2200 scientist who believe in man-made global change. Then ask those scientists if this is their belief.....
Oh wait...the IPCC will NOT release their list. I guess they have something to hide...or sell.
cheers
Michael, what do you mean they haven't released their list? Have you read the report?
The list of scientists involved in writing and reviewing the reports are given in Annex 2 and 3 of the WG1 report ("We're the ones doing it"), Appendix II and III of the WG2 report ("It's gonna be bad"), and Annex III and IV of the WG3 report ("Here's what we can do about it").
The scientists who did the original research cited throughout the report are listed with the references for each individual chapter, much like any scientific paper.
I'll even provide the URLs. However, I can't do your homework for you. (Horse, water, and all that.)
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-annexes.pdf
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-app.pdf
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-annex3.pdf
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-annex4.pdf
Feel free to ask them. I'm calling your bluff.
"Feel free to ask them. I'm calling your bluff."
oh, bam! now they've got their leg work cut out for them. not that they'll bother; knee-kerk denials are so much easier....
KEvron
The report I saw AR4 showed 32ish on the Core Writing team
230ish on the Review Team
Hardly seems like a consensus of 2400
So we need to assume that if they did not respond than they are in the affirmative?
Do we assume that only 10% of the 2400 had an opinion of the matter?
Does this constitute the end of debate on a matter?
Rook to queen 3
The report I saw AR4 showed 32ish on the Core Writing team 230ish on the Review Team
I've seen no such list. Evidence please.
Q-B8 ch
Best,
D
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-annexes.pdf
start at page 15. i roughly estimate about 600 plus contributors and 550 plus reviewers. add to that your 32ish and 230ish, and that 2400 looms.
king me!
KEvron
Enough with the "my list of scientists is longer than YOUR list of scientists" nonsense. Have a look at the quality of the research. What's getting published in reputable journals? What are the scientists actually saying? Clear the air of all the PR crap (which is what this blog is doing) and you will find that the science is actually quite settled. Avery is not only a bad judge of facial hair and eyewear, he is unable to distinguish between what he wants a scientist to conclude, and what that scientist actually DOES conclude from his research.
Oh what the heck. It's been a long day.
Fern Mackenzie
Now that both the atmosphere and oceans are cooling, what are the alarmists going to do for an encore? Let's try stopping volcanoes next. The science is surely settled on that issue, as well.