Drip, Drip, Drip: Heartland's Credibility Leaks Steadily Away

Thu, 2008-05-08 16:10Richard Littlemore
Richard Littlemore's picture

Drip, Drip, Drip: Heartland's Credibility Leaks Steadily Away

Matthew Reichbach of the New Mexico Centre for Independent Media contributes another name and another quote from scientists objecting to being added to the Heartland Institute's overcooked list of scientists who deny climate change.

From what I can tell, the list was compiled mostly from reviewed scientific articles in which authors proposed or identified various sources of natural variability in climate; in my case solar irradiance and cosmic ray flux. I’m not sure of the intent of the compilation of 500 names, but the supplied information seems to suggest 500 authors have questioned human induced variability. This does not hold in my case and probably does not in the case of many others.

Roger Y. Anderson, University of New Mexico

So here's the question: Dennis Avery and the Hudson /Heartland Alliance for Climate Confusion create a list of people who they say are “co-authors” of a paper that challenges the science of climate change. Dozens of those scientists ask, with grace and good manners, to be removed the that list. And Heartland's response: Well, President Joe Bast changes the headline on the original post and concludes: “We plan to make no further changes to the articles or to the lists ” - a list that still identifies these scientists as “co-authors.”

It seems ever more obvious that we have been right in our underlying assumption: the Heartland Institute just doesn't care if the information that it distributes is fair or accurate.

Previous Comments

Heartland has never had any to lose.

Certainly not in any serious scientific context, but among a great many deniers, this passes for legitimate debate. The very foundation of academic credibility rests on methodology and the veracity of citations. If you screw up, misquote a source, or fabricate something, your reputation is toast. Carelessness is not easily forgiven. The Heartland Institute has demonstrated that it doesn’t give a monkey’s for scholarly standards – no surprise to me, or to anyone else who’s professional life (read: income) depends on scrupulous accuracy – but for those unfamiliar with the standards, this passes for valid discourse. Sad state of affairs, and a reminder of Carl Sagan’s lament that in an age in which scientific awareness is so important, so little of it is evident!

Fern Mackenzie

“We plan to make no further changes to the articles or to the lists”

Some things just refuse to go according to the plan:

http://frankbi.wordpress.com/2008/05/08/unstoppable-angry-scientists/

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

WOW! Is this a story! I just got of the phone with the Washington Post news desk. Boston Globe is next. Since stumbling upon this blog this afternoon, I have emailed more than 20 blogs, and contacted at least 6 MSM outlets so far. As a scientist I am outraged at the fraudulent use of the authors, as a concerned citizen I have had enough of these so called ‘debunkers’. What a great story. I’ll be donating once I’m done emailing. Kudos to you Richard!

8rThank’s for greate post.7r I compleatly agree with last post. vpc
паркет 6s

[x]

Would UKIP be riding so high if voters knew of the party's links with powerful right-wing US corporate interests promoting fossil fuels, denying climate change, opposing gun control, and supporting big tobacco, teaching creationism in schools, healthcare privatisation and the lifting of nuclear power regulation? Alex Stevenson and Oliver Tickell of The Ecologist investigate.

UKIP's big-picture goal is a bid to achieve independence from the European Union - but in backing...

read more