Heartland Institute Condemned for "Major Ethical Transgression"

Fri, 2008-05-02 16:03Richard Littlemore
Richard Littlemore's picture

Heartland Institute Condemned for "Major Ethical Transgression"

Here is a brief taste of some of the emails that have been flying this week to the Heartland Institute in protest over their distribution of a purported scientific paper that announces 500 Scientists with Documented Doubts about Man-Made Global Warming Scares.

Notwithstanding these requests - and many more, as well - as of 4 p.m. EST on Friday, May 2, 2008, the offending article remained on the Heartland website with the names all still attached. There is no apology, clarification or correction. It's as if Heartland President and CEO Joseph Bast just doesn't care about the accuracy of his output or the credibility of his organization ….

Dear Mr. Joseph Blast,

Please remove my name from your list of climate skeptics.

While I believe that there are a lot of unknowns, especially how much sea level will rise in coming decades, it is clear that the earth is warming and apparent that humans are playing a role.

My actual area of expertise is sea level rise impacts, and the coastal system is hard wired everything else being equal so that sea level rise causes beach erosion and wetland loss.

Stephen P. Leatherman

Chair Professor and Director

International Hurricane Research Center & Laboratory for Coastal Research Florida International University

My work in no way casts doubt on the reality of human-caused global warming. The true state of the science is that we know of no natural process or cycle that could explain the bulk of the current global warming and many associated changes. The recent IPCC report is clear on this issue. It is not appropriate for my name to be listed in support of the assertion being made by the Heartland Institute.

Jonathan T. Overpeck

Director

Institute for the Study of Planet Earth, University of Arizona

I recently learned from a colleague that I am listed on your (the Heartland Institute's) website as one of 500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares.

Please remove my name from the list of “coauthors” on your website. I do not agree with the conclusions attributed to my name, and in no sense did I “coauthor” anything on your website.

Jeff Severinghaus

Professor of Geosciences

Scripps Institute of Oceanography

University of California, San Diego

P.S. Using my name (and many others) in this way is a major ethical transgression.

Dear Sir,

It has just been drawn to my attention that my name is included on a list of 500 “co-authors” of a report published on the www by your organization.

I have read that report and the list of conclusions reached and I find that I disagree most strongly with these conclusions.

Quite apart from my disagreement about the conclusions reached, however, it is QUITE UNACCEPTABLE to have one's name associated with such a report as a “co-author” without one's explicit prior agreement.

I ask, therefore, that my name be removed from that list FORTHWITH.

Please acknowledge receipt of this e-mail and also confirm that my name has been removed from this list.

Prof. Brian Huntley

Institute of Ecosystem Science

School of Biological and Biomedical Sciences Durham University

Hi:

Apparently I am listed on the Heartland list as someone whose work casts doubt on whether greenhouse warming is occurring.

I am loath to give Heartland any publicity, but I am prepared to state for the record that I, personally, do not believe that my published work supports the idea that current greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are not the main driver behind the observed 20th century warming trend. My work does document times in the 120 000 years when temperatures appear to have been higher than at present, but I do not regard these results as undermining the international consensus as to the reality of changes over the last century.

Yours sincerely

Matt McGlone

Science Team Leader, Biodiversity & Conservation Landcare Research

Canterbury, New Zealand

Dear Dr Bast,

It has come to my notice that my name appears on a list of so-called co-authors to an article accessible on your website in which it is claimed that current global warming and associated problems are not primarily caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

I ask you to please remove my name from the list of 500 supposed authors of this article. The article is, in my view, an example of very bad science as it is eclectic, and further twists evidence, ultimately citing published work in the opposite sense. The ethics of it all are also problematic, as the article is quite obviously construed to serve the interests of a narrow group. That is not what science should be about. Further, it is well known that prospective co-authors must be asked first about the inclusion of their name on an article, before it is published. And posting on the Web constitutes publication. You are thus contravening good practice in a number of ways.

I know quite a few people on your list, and am absolutely convinced that none of these would wish to be associated with your article.

Concerning the removal of my name, I will regularly check and will contact you again if I find it has not been done. Then I might be slightly less polite.

With best regards,

Jan Kramers

Institut fuer Geologie

Universitaet Bern

 

Comments

This looks like another false entry:

Hendy, Chari H., University of Waikato, New Zealand

There is a Chris Hendy at Waikato. A is next to S on the keyboard so this looks like a typo. Chris Hendy wrote this:

…concerns about abrupt climate change are very real,” says Chris Hendy. “One of the concerns we scientists have is that buildup of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere could be one of the triggers that tips the earth into an abrupt climate change.” http://www.waikato.ac.nz/news/index.shtml?article=359

There are no ‘false entries’. There is instead a sleight-of-hand - on both sides.

Does Heartland claim these 500 are themselves climate skeptics? Not directly. Rather, the claim is that these authors and academics have produced research that supports the climate viewpoint of Avery and Singer …

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21978

“This partial listing is derived primarily from the citations in our book, Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years. As the time of our small staff permits, we will publish additional studies and their authors to support the very important view that the Modern Warming is natural and no more dangerous than were the Medieval Warming, the Roman Warming and the Holocene Warming before it.”

So the outrage against the Heartland 500 is - SKEPTICS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO CITE NON-SKEPTICS IN THEIR BOOKS! Desmog has one-upped heartland with a PR stunt of their own. Claims of legal action are humorous but absurd.

If you want to get back at Avery and Singer, read their book and write a scathing review of it.

I have to disagree, Patrick. This is more than a citation list. At the beginning, Dennis Avery clearly states: “The following list includes more than 500 qualified researchers whose research in professional journals *provides historic and/or physical proxy evidence* that:”

And then he lists the seven conclusions.

It is not in any way clear that any or especially all of the research papers listed provide such evidence or support such conclusions; from the responding scientists’ remarks, we can see that some of them take umbrage that their research findings are used in supporting such conclusions.

Further, when you click on the “Download Full Text” link, you see that the list is headed “co-authors,” reasonably suggesting that all these scientists support the conclusions of the Heartland report. This is clearly not the case.

If I were one of these scientists, I would be quite upset. The significance of scientific reputation being what it is, coupled with the ethical concern around the use of the word “co-authors” would prompt me to request that my name be removed from the list, and to speak to a lawyer.

The article:

500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares

lists them as co-authors, not references Patrick.

That is a different thing entirely. It is NOT just a list of citations, Patrick. Avery cites these people as co-authors. without their permission and as far as I can tell, without any basic understanding of their work. That is academic suicide, and the Heartland Institute is guilty of gross incompetence. As for the book, been there, done that.

Fern Mackenzie

It’s rather refreshing to hear such plain language and succinctness directly from these scientists, rather than their organizations.

Plain language or not, I am surprised to find that none of the scientists responding calls a spade a spade.

A scientist active in an atmospheric discipline knowingly subscribing to this screed is either grossly incompetent, or a sociopathic lying monster. If I were being so characterized by implication, I would want to have a chat with my lawyer.

…and isn’t authorship of a paper like a signature? Looks like forgery too.

“grossly incompetent, or a sociopathic lying ”

Or perhaps they simply can’t continue lying to support the AGW agenda anymore when CLEARLY, it has failed.

Along with the PDO climate shift comes the inevitable GW paradigm shift.

More to follow, much more.

tax em while you can…..

Ninja troll throws out another smoke bomb.

How about talking about the list itself, Troll? Do you have anything other than the good old “totally invisible Bolshevist conspiracy which only appears in crossword puzzles” which has been trotted out zillions of times over?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://frankbi.wordpress.com/ International Journal of Inactivism
“Al `Fat Al’ Gore [is fat]” – Harold Pierce

If AGW has so clearly failed then how can the HI not find 500 real, living scientists who agree that position?

I guess the angry scientists disavowing themselves from “coauthorship” must be getting paid the Big Bucks by Big Solar to prop up a failed hypothesis?

If my funding was dependent on sucking up to the AGW industry propoganda, I would distance myself from HI as well.
50 Billion dollars in directed agenda funding has a lot of infleuence.

Science will win in the end however.

“Science will win in the end however.”

I’m counting on it.

So, you really think that these folks who are expressing outrage at being listed as co-authors without their knowledge or consent are lying about their position on AGW? You are quite a contortionist, aren’t you Troll? How you do twist yourself into knots! What next, I wonder?

Fern Mackenzie

They are either:
lying
mistaken
misslead
blind
or stupid.

Anyway you slice it, AGW just simply no longer makes any sense outside of primitive GCMs.

Reality has unfortunately put it to rest.
Reality bites.

But what would you know about reality?

Troll:

Here’s the deal. If you want to belch out poorly considered insults, you can do so at your leisure. If you want to call me an agenda-driven Bolshevist (no matter how stupid that is), I don’t care - and I support your right to do so.

But when it comes to suggesting that someone is lying - which is a very specific slander - you may not.

The standard that the DeSmogBlog tries to maintain is this: when we call someone like Fred Singer or Tim Ball a liar, we are specific about the nature and detail of lie, and we (obviously) sign the post, so that Ball, or Singer or any other scoundrel can sue us if they doubt we have the proof. (We’re waiting, we’re waiting ….)

So, if you want to call someone a liar, please include the specifics of your charge, your full name and your phone number, and we’ll be happy to continue to publish your “work” as we always have.

But if you use the term otherwise, we’ll delete the post and ban you from the site.

Fair enough? 

Fern: I’m counting on it.

Interesting comment.

Do you have a lot of money invested in projects that count on AGW hysteria to be successful?

Your appearent ferver seems a bit personel.

I haven’t got any money at all, invested or otherwise. But that’s my problem.

What I am counting on, Troll, is that the decision makers of this world will finally accept that the science of AGW is solid, and that they must act.

Of course it’s personal. I have another 25 or 30 years to go on this earth, and I would like to leave it a better place than I found it. I also have a 20-year-old son who must deal with the consequences of our actions now. If I have any immortality, it is in my descendants, and I would like them to believe that I did whatever I could to correct the misguided actions of our ancestors.

And what, by the way, is wrong with having a bit of “fervour” about leaving a legacy of hope?

Fern Mackenzie

It was just a question Fern.
I actually respect ferver in any good cause.
Yours included.
I honestly believe that your intentions are good and for the most part I agree with much of what you suggest.
While I don’t agree with you on AGW I do agree that we should all do our best to leave the world in better shape for our children. I have two in that age group.
I just don’t agree on the method.
I too want the government to act, but not on what I consider faulty science and hype.
I want action on issues that can be resolved and that will have concrete benificial results.

We both want a better world, we just don’t agree on how to get there. Cheers

The answer is that you have no qualifications for interpreting the science and coming to the complete opposite conclusions of over 95% of scientists who do have the proper qualifications.

There are only two reasons you persist in spouting the rubbish that you post on this blog.

One is that you are acting for political and big business reasons. The second is that somehow you get your kicks by arguing unintelligently just for the sake of being a sh!t disturber. Neither one says very much for your character and your support for your fellow beings on this earth. Seems that you would be quite happy to see increased levels of misery around the world as long as you can do as you please. Such an attitude is disgusting.

Ian Forrester

I have exactly the same qualifications you do.
Prove that 95% of scientists support your position.
You can’t.
My reasons for posting on this blog have been stated clearly several times. They remain.
You opinion of my character is irrelevant.
As is my opinion that your devotion to the silly notion that man made CO2 is measurably altering the climate of world is at best misguided and at worst reckless to the point of shameful.
Your agenda driven AGW movement will cause far more harm worldwide than any natural problem.
Get a grip Ian. GW has stopped and whining about it will not make it start up again.

You are a worthless piece of humanity. You do not even have the decency to let us know who and what you are. Thank goodness there are far more people who are wiling to do something about our environment than the disgusting people like you and the others who infect this blog with their disgusting attitudes like yours.

No wonder you want to stay anonymous, you are fearful of what your family, friends (if you actually have any) and co-workers would think of you if they knew how disgusting you are.

Get lost TROLL.

Ian Forrester

The concept of free speech anoying you Ian?
No doubt you would prefer a nice socialist controlled propaganda machine that only published state accepted doctrine.

The reason I don’t buy AGW is precisely because of what I have learned about it by reading more than just the propaganda.

You should give it a try, it might open your mind a bit.
With an open mind you might be a bit less angry and well….. rude.

Have a good week Ian,
I will, knowing full well that the crisis has been called off because the consensus was, Yet Again, wrong.

I also hate those who scorn science and scientists. You are an arrogant, ignorant fool. Your attitude just disgusts me.

Why do you not educate yourself on the basics of climate science?

Ian Forrester

“You are a worthless piece of humanity.”

Oh, my stars! You’re just letting it all hang out now, aren’t you Ian?

“Thank goodness there are far more people who are wiling to do something about our environment than the disgusting people like you and the others who infect this blog with their disgusting attitudes like yours.”

Check … check …

“No wonder you want to stay anonymous, you are fearful of what your family, friends (if you actually have any) and co-workers would think of you if they knew how disgusting you are.”

… and, check.

“Get lost TROLL.”

If this were in a paper format, I imagine Ian’s little screeds being made up of different letters cut from magazines and newspapers, pasted together with his own feces.

“Ian Forrester”

Yeah, we would have never guessed.

Ian, aren’t the voices in your head telling you it’s time to play with your shotgun collection? You know you want to.

“The answer is that you have no qualifications for interpreting the science and coming to the complete opposite conclusions of over 95% of scientists who do have the proper qualifications.”

Oh, really? I don’t recall scientists ever taking a vote on the issue? When did that happen, Ian?

And what if they did take a vote? Does the natural world now obligingly arrange itself on democratic principles? Is objective reality now a popularity contest?

“There are only two reasons you persist in spouting the rubbish that you post on this blog. One is that you are acting for political and big business reasons.”

And what if we are speaking out for political reasons? Global Warming is most certainly a political doctrine. As a citizen, I have the absolute right to express my opinion whether idiots, such as you, like it or not.

As to qualifications, being a citizen who is expected to foot the bill for this nonsense is all the qualification I need. Aside from that, I’m not obligated to submit my resume to you before I draw my own conclusions. The fact is, the arguments from your side are massively unconvincing. Certainly one qualification I seem to possess, which you lack, is that I am not emotionally unbalanced and constantly on the verge of an apoplectic fit. You might want to look into some pills, or something.

“The second is that somehow you get your kicks by arguing unintelligently just for the sake of being a sh!t disturber. Neither one says very much for your character”

The fact that you are disturbed by it doesn’t say much for your character … such as it is.

“Seems that you would be quite happy to see increased levels of misery around the world as long as you can do as you please.”

Why do you always blame others for the tortured private hell you clearly inhabit? I would suggest it is of your own making.

“Such an attitude is disgusting.” Bingo!

The Inactivist Media continue to suppress all discussion on the Heartland list…

http://tinyurl.com/54px86

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://frankbi.wordpress.com/ International Journal of Inactivism
“Al `Fat Al’ Gore [is fat]” – Harold Pierce

OK, DeSmoggers… why are the mainstream media still not covering this story?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://frankbi.wordpress.com/ International Journal of Inactivism
“Al `Fat Al’ Gore [is fat]” – Harold Pierce

That’s a good question.
Maybe some of them are still busy cleaning egg off their face?
But the rest…I don’t know.
Maybe they don’t think it’s time to stick a fork in it….yet

Since the MSM is clearly overwhelmingly biased in favor of the Propaganda position of the multibillion dollar AGW industry, one would expect this non story to be in the headlines.
Perhaps, the MSM is beginning to get nervous about being humiliated when the house of cards finally collapses.
Or maybe it just not very important.

Perhaps the MSM is not reporting this because the obvious reality is:
Even if a few have objected, that still leaves 465 on the list.

455 still does not look good in the face of claims of “overwhelming concensus”.

Reality bites agein.

Ah yes, the “even if…” tactic again, a.k.a. iterative backpedalling.

Hahahahahahahaha.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://frankbi.wordpress.com/ International Journal of Inactivism
“Al `Fat Al’ Gore [is fat]” – Harold Pierce

are 465 people who haven’t found out yet that they have been claimed as “co-authors” of Singer & Avery’s book, Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years, people whose work has been distorted or quoted out of context to misrepresent their findings. I’m not a scientist, but I write for a living and know a thing or two about scholarly ethics and citation of sources. This is outrageous behaviour, absolutely unacceptable. They can quote anybody they want and include citations as notes, but listing them as co-authors is absurd. It would be hilarious if it were not also offensive to the scientists involved.

Fern Mackenzie

The most effective thing you can do to ramp up the fight against climate change is to take an AGW denial propagandist on, on their own astroturf: http://globalwarmingwatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/tackle-climate-change-troll.html

The most effective thing you could do is to provide convincing evidence, good logical arguments that are not easily defeated and ultimately some small proof that AGW is real.

So far, the best that has been submitted is conjecture, weak linkage arguments and highly suspect computer simulations.

Nobody listens to smear campaigns and ranting.
Support your theory with something that can’t be so easily countered and you might sway more people.

Oh, and perhaps you could get the planet to actually warm up a bit as well. That would help a lot.

This coming from someone who propagates moronic conspiracy theories based on Bible Code methodologies?

I disagree with Wadard though. I think the best thing to do now is to seek out neutral sites which happen to discuss global warming, and lay out the facts – and expose the utter stupidity of inactivist memes.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://frankbi.wordpress.com/ International Journal of Inactivism
“Al `Fat Al’ Gore [is fat]” – Harold Pierce

Nobody listens to smear campaigns and ranting.

This is why I follow the science, and that science says that it is almost a certainty (95% probability) that human use of fossil fuels is the main forcing in GW. It’s not Frank’s theory, or mine, or anybody else’s who posts here. It is a scientific theory that’s taken 100 years to be developed on the basis of research and evidence. The idea that a bunch of armchair critics can poke holes in it or conclude that it is all nothing but “conjecture, weak linkage arguments and highly suspect computer simulations” is ludicrous.

Fern Mackenzie

If the theory was so sound, it would not be so incredibly easy to poke holes in it.

If the theory weren’t sound, you won’t have to invent stupid conspiracy theories to “debunk” it, will you?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://frankbi.wordpress.com/ International Journal of Inactivism
“Al `Fat Al’ Gore [is fat]” – Harold Pierce

They are only holes in your own mind, Troll. The theory is holding up just fine.

Fern Mackenzie

Canadian schools sent brochures, DVDs from climate change skeptics

This went out on the national newswire this weekend - the Heartland is not getting much good press these days.

It’s hard to suppress a giggle. A timely letter to the editor at the Vancouver Sun pointing out Avery’s list might be in order …

Fern Mackenzie

How DARE they?!

If Gore had dumped 11,000 copies of AIT onto a school, rob would’ve denounced it as a blatant act of propaganda in trying to brainwash little children’s minds and a heinous crime against humanity.

The consistency in inactivist “ethics” and “logic” is astounding.

(For the record, I won’t like it if Gore actually did that.)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://frankbi.wordpress.com/ International Journal of Inactivism
“Al `Fat Al’ Gore [is fat]” – Harold Pierce

Heartland, um, corrects the title of its 14 Sep 2007 press release:

http://tinyurl.com/69g728

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://frankbi.wordpress.com/ International Journal of Inactivism
“Al `Fat Al’ Gore [is fat]” – Harold Pierce

I wonder who paid for packages to 11,000 schools.

///
Canadian schools sent brochures, DVDs from climate change skeptics.
Mike De Souza, Canwest News Service
Published: Sunday, May 04, 2008

OTTAWA – An American think tank has sent out more than 11,000 brochures and DVDs to Canadian schools urging them to teach their students that scientists are exaggerating how human activity is the driving force behind global warming…

Finally some reason to counter that science finction noncense from Al Gore.

You are thinking of Crichton, if you mean fiction, Dave. Gore is the one who says he has to ask scientists about science before he speaks.

I said Gore and I meant Gore.

I think it wasn’t Gore who invented the “ignore climate models actually proposed in the literature and make up your own horseshite model” scientific method.

It wasn’t James Hansen either. Or Lockwood. Or Santer. Or Keenlyside. Or Zhen-Shan and Xian.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://frankbi.wordpress.com/ International Journal of Inactivism
“Al `Fat Al’ Gore [is fat]” – Harold Pierce

The list is still there, still titled “Co-Authors”, and still includes names that have requested they be removed. Time for a bit of legal action, perhaps?

Fern Mackenzie

Pages

[x]

The Heartland Institute is once again pulling no punches in their quest to spread misinformation on climate science.

In the run-up to the odd return of Heartland's infamous Denial-a-Palooza conference series next month in Las Vegas, the right wing think tank has purchased a large...

read more