How Heartland-style Climate Sceptic Campaigns Play "Hide the Deniers" Using Secretive Fund

Wed, 2012-02-29 15:59Graham Readfearn
Graham Readfearn's picture

How Heartland-style Climate Sceptic Campaigns Play "Hide the Deniers" Using Secretive Fund

A LOW-PROFILE funding organisation acting as a middleman for wealthy conservative businesspeople has been quietly backing climate denial campaigns across the US.

The Virginia-based Donors Capital Fund and its partner organisation Donors Trust has been giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to groups blocking attempts to limit greenhouse gas pollution and undermining climate science.

Yet the structure of the funds allows the identities of donors and the existence of any vested interests to remain hidden from public view.

Step aside the fakery of “hide the decline”. Say hello to “hide the deniers”.

During the 2009 unlawful release of the private emails of climate scientists, the phrase “hide the decline” became a catch cry for the denial industry as it tried to convince the world that global warming was some kind of hoax.

Sceptics, fake climate experts, conservative politicians and right-wing commentators latched onto the phrase contained in an email from British climate scientist Phil Jones.
Sceptics claimed it was evidence scientists were trying to manufacture global temperature records. In fact, Professor Jones's email said nothing of the sort. 
Jones, as he explained to many, including the BBC, was referring to data taken from tree rings that, up to the 1960s, had correlated well with global temperatures.
But “removing the incorrect impression given by tree rings that temperatures… were not rising”, as Jones explained, just didn’t have the same ring to it as “hide the decline”.
The most high profile case involving climate sceptics since that non-scandal of “Climategate” is the ongoing unmasking (or for some, confirmation) of the methods the free-market Heartland Institute think-tank deploys to confuse the public about the dangers of fossil fuel emissions.
But the case also gives an insight into how Heartland and other ideologically aligned groups gather their funding while preserving the identity of their wealthy backers.
Heartland does not like the public to know who is funding its campaigns to deliberately undermine decades of research into the effects of greenhouse gas emissions on the climate and oceans.
Like other groups, such as the UK’s Global Warming Policy Foundation or Australia’s Institute for Public Affairs, these think-tanks promoting climate confusion say they keep their funders secret, in part, because of the public vilification they may attract if their identities are revealed. 
Even so, previous investigations of Heartland’s funding have found their backers to include Exxon Mobil, the Scaife oil, aluminium and banking family and a suite of other libertarian foundations.
Thanks to the work of DeSmogBlog contributor John Mashey and others, a key funder to Heartland has emerged in the form of the Virginia-based Donors Capital Fund, and its related Donors Trust. 
A review of their grant giving, recorded in documents filed to the Internal Revenue Service, reveals DCF’s penchant for other climate sceptic, anti-greenhouse regulation campaigns which pour scorn on climate science and climate scientists while claiming environmental regulations are attacks on freedom.
DCF works by establishing what it calls “donor-advised funds” with a “minimum initial gift” of $1 million. 
According to DCF’s IRS 990 declarations, in 2010 it gave out $41.1 million in grants. In 2009 this was $59.7 million and in 2008, $70.8 million.
The dollars given by donors are held by DCF in an account and invested, “until the donor recommends grant disbursements to any number of liberty-minded public charities”.
Donors can also appoint third parties or entire committees to dish out the cash on their behalf. DCF keeps spending the money at the donor’s request as long as it falls within DCF’s “overall mission and purpose”.
That purpose is to always promote private initiatives, rather than government programs, as the best way to tackle society’s issues in areas including the environment, social welfare and health.
As well as cutting down on paperwork, the DCF also allows the funders, and any vested interests, to remain hidden from public view.
In 2009, Heartland’s revenue was $6,785,374. That same year, DCF gave Heartland $2,171,530, of which at least $770,000 went specifically to global warming-related projects. 
In 2008, when Heartland’s revenue was $7.78million, the DCF gave the institute $4.6 million, of which $184,000 was specifically for “global warming research projects” and $2million for “general operations”.
Also in 2009, DCF gave $115,000 to the Oregon-based Cascade Policy Institute for what the IRS 990 form described as “a cap and trade/climate change transparency video”.
The documentary in question was most likely “Climate Chains”, which is part of the Cascade Policy Institute’s “Carbon Cartel Education Project”. DCF gave the Carbon Cartel Education Project $80,000 the previous year.
During the film, the “experts” claimed human-caused climate change was a “bandwagon”, a “fad” and that somehow, during what has since been declared as the hottest decade on the instrumental record, the world was cooling.
Any attempts to introduce laws to mitigate climate change, were simply an “attack on freedom”. 
The experts featured in Climate Chains were exclusively staff members of other free-market think-tanks, such as Myron Ebell and Christopher Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Pat Michaels, of the Cato Institute.
Heartland’s leaked 2012 Fundraising Plan highlighted a project to develop teaching modules for schools from kindergarten to grade 12 that would teach how climate science was “controversial”.
Heartland says that an “Anonymous Donor” has already pledged $100,000 to pay for the project.
The Daily Kos blog (which has also provided links to all the relevant IRS 990 forms) puts a compelling case that this “Anonymous Donor” is reclusive industrialist Barre Seid, who has been using the DCF to direct his funds.
Also in 2010, DCF gave $35,000 to the “Free-to-Choose Network” for “unstoppable solar cycles DVD” – presumably to either pay for them, or distribute them. The network has also received $393,607 cash from DCF the previous year.
Unstoppable Solar Cycles is a short film aimed at school children (with one version narrated by an on-screen school-age presenter) that Heartland helped to distribute.
There were four principal scientific voices in the video, which argued the sun could be to blame for climate change and argued CO2 was a minor element in the climate system.
Dr David Legates and Dr Willie Soon are both well-known contrarian scientists with outlying
views on climate change.
The IRS forms reveal that in 2010 Donors Trust gave $50,000 to the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, “for research under Dr Willie Soon”.
A Greenpeace spokesman has told DeSmogBlog it is now “investigating the genesis” of this $50,000 grant, which he said was not disclosed when Greenpeace requested documents from Smithsonian under Freedom of Information laws last year. 
As DeSmogBlog and others reported last year, the Greenpeace investigation found that every grant Dr. Soon has received since 2002 had originated with fossil fuel interests.
Exxon Mobil, the American Petroleum Institute and Koch Industries were revealed as major supporters of Soon’s research.
One of the other two interviewees in the video, Rie Oldenburg, the curator of the Narsaq Musem in Southern Greenland, claimed the makers of the video had misled her. 
She was under the impression she was being interviewed for a video on Norse history.  Oldenburg also claimed that the remaining participant in the video, Ingibjorg Gilsladottir, had been told the film was for the Discovery Channel.
The student presenter in the video, “Beth”, concluded, “From what I’ve heard the cost to reduce CO2 will be enormous and, as the scientists said, this may not be the cause. We could create disaster for poor countries and hardship for all of us and not change the pattern of warming and cooling.”
Other recent donations of note from DCF include $100,000 to the James Madison Institute for Public Policy “for climate change and Vaclav Klaus event”. Klaus is the president of the Czech Republic who describes human-caused climate change as a “mass delusion”.
The International Policy Network, which has published papers focusing on the “uncertainties” in climate change science and lobbying against putting a price on greenhouse gases, received $185,000 from DCF in 2010.
In 2010, Donors Trust gave several grants to one of the most overt of all climate science denying organisations, the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, which flew a delegation including Lord Christopher Monckton to Durban for last year’s UN climate conference.
Some $535,500 went to CFACT’s “Environmental Education Fund”. A further $24,753 went towards the “Not Evil, Just Wrong project”. 
Not Evil Just Wrong is a film that claims regulating greenhouse gas emissions will cripple world economies and hurt the third-world.

DCF has close ties to another, higher profile funding group, Philanthropy Roundtable.

Adam Meyerson is DCF’s chairman and also the president of Philanthropy Roundtable. DCF’s vice-chairman, Kimberly O. Dennis, is a Philanthropy Roundtable board member as well as being the chairman of Donors Trust.

DCF shares an address with Donors Trust and several board members and staff. Whitney Ball is the president of DCF and Donors Trust.

Steven Hayward, a DCF board member, is also a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. In 2006, it emerged that Hayward had written to an astrophysics professor offering $10,000 for a review of an IPCC report to “explore the limitations of climate model outputs”.

Earlier this week, Hayward wrote in detail about the Heartland issue, not mentioning his role on the board of DCF, which has given Heartland more than $6million in recent years.

In Heartland’s most recent “Quarterly Performance Report” the institute bragged it had logged “63,418 contacts with legislators” on climate change and environmental policy issues”.

In the report, senior fellow James M. Taylor, a Forbes blogger, was still claiming the 2009 “Climategate” emails showed scientists committing “fraud and misconduct” more than a year after numerous independent inquiries into the allegations found the opposite.

Not so much a case of “hide the decline” as a case of “hide the facts”, “hide the science” and “hide the deniers”.



I like your new adviser, the Dog Scientist.  I even like her name, Crockford.

Lara, it's just that you are conditioned to protect fossil fuel profits and eliminate competition. Where is your outrage over tax dollars spent on war? Where is your outrage over tax dollars being spent through subsidies to prop up fossil fuel companies, which are private companies already making billions? Or agrarian socialism? What happened to the free market?

Such is your ideological conditioning that you never examine that side of things, but jump on the bandwagon to criticise something (research into AGW) that is for YOUR benefit!

People starving in the 3rd world? Seriously? Nice red herring, been reading Bjorn Lomborg again by the sounds of it. In the short term ,nothing short of taking over the governments of those 3rd world affected countries will fix starvation. Besides, the governments on our planet are faced with numerous quandaries and to focus on only one issue at the expense of others is dangerous.


You're not seeing the forest for the trees my friend. The system is so broken right now that Green NGO's have convinced the government of the US and third world countries that they know the best way to waste our hard earned dollars.

For instance, they are handing out things solar power radios (very fragile, I'm told), hugely expensive custom made stuff, instead of trying to help people dig wells so that they can get a reliable source of clean water.

Green washing has gone so far over the top now that it's beyond belief. And there is a seemingly endless stream of cash (ours, mostly) feeding this madness.

P.s. Funn how Hank's original post about Heartland's miniscule funding has been completely disappeared from this thread. Nice!

"You're not seeing the forest for the trees my friend."

That's laughable Chas considering what you say next.

"The system is so broken right now that Green NGO's have convinced the government of the US and third world countries that they know the best way to waste our hard earned dollars."

Wow, how conned are you Chas? Please point to me where the green NGO's companies are on the Forbes richest companies list?

Green NGO's are absolutely miniscule in comparision. Are you telling me miniscule green NGO's have more political powers of persuasion than the might of the fossil fuel industry? You are dreaming Chas, get real. 100's of billions are being spent by western governments on subsidies to get fossil fuel companies into developing nations and I dont hear you whinging about that. They are private companies Chas, why does the governments need to speed 100's of billions on them?,3407,en_21571361_48776931_1_1_1_1_1,00.html

The price of your petrol/gas for your car would be a lot more were it not for these subsidies. That just goes to show you that, if given the real price of fossil fuels, you would probably scramble for cleantech within a week.


"For instance, they are handing out things solar power radios (very fragile, I'm told), hugely expensive custom made stuff, instead of trying to help people dig wells so that they can get a reliable source of clean water."

Chas, are you saying that solar power radios are being given out at the expense of drilling wells for water? Or they are doing that as well as drilling for water? Either way, please provide detailed evidence, as we know how the denier rumor mill works.

"Green washing has gone so far over the top now that it's beyond belief. And there is a seemingly endless stream of cash (ours, mostly) feeding this madness."

You are so indoctrinated, that you don't see the irony of that statement.

"P.s. Funn how Hank's original post about Heartland's miniscule funding has been completely disappeared from this thread. Nice!"


They are but one company do realise that dont you? Paid to defend private profits, while asking for handouts from the taxpayer.







And stop calling them Green NGOs.  That's the silliest thing I've heard.  NASA... Green NGO?  NOAA  Green NGO?

You must be mad.


Did you look at what the military think tanks are saying?


Here's a libertarian for you.  He's certainly no friend of Greens.

I suspect that the reason Bill Gates is worried about global warming is that the third world takes the brunt of the damage.  Nothing he tries to do over there is useful or valuable if Global Warming kicks in.

A team of incompetent hacks fronted by a web-site and a PO box can be fielded pretty cheaply. 


For an example of Heartland's dishonesty and incompetence, check out this link:

Caerbannog, Bill Nordhaus (an economist!) just did approximately the same thing as you...

Yes, it costs a lot less to criticise research into AGW, than to conduct research that proposes an alternate hypothesis.


All my comments here, as I'm new to desmogblog, are an independent's viewpoint. The first point is like to raise here concerns the Greenpeace investigation into Dr. Willie Soon's funding. Is there any reason I should trust an extremist org like Greenpeace to "investigate" a scientist with views that are opposite their own? More to the point, can I trust their opinion of the facts culled from that investigation?

that oil companies will have the opposite opinion for a little grist across the palm.

"All my comments here, as I'm new to desmogblog, are an independent's viewpoint."

No they are not. You show your ideology in the next statement.

"Is there any reason I should trust an extremist org like Greenpeace"

Why are they extremist?


Phil, in case you're not aware of it, the CSIS and RCMP have classified Greenpeace as extremist. It would seem that Greenpeace targets such as energy production facilities and the Bank of Canada. Incidentally, I consider most social conservative groups extremist-like those that seek to outlaw abortion. Don't feed me that garbage that I'm not an independent.

"Phil, in case you're not aware of it, the CSIS and RCMP have classified Greenpeace as extremist."

Usually when one makes such an emphatic statement, they add weight to it with facts e.g. citation/reference/link.

I searched both of those sites and could not find the evidence you say is there. I'm sure you can provide that evidence can't you? An official statement and not some schmucks opinion?

Besides, this is 2 out of hundreds of intelligence agencies and GreenPeace are not known as extremist anywhere else but right wing and denier blogs.

"Don't feed me that garbage that I'm not an independent."

I sincerely apologise if I got you wrong. It's just that after nearly 10 years of participating in blogs such as these, I get it right 90% of the time. The language is obvious to anyone who follows this subject long enough. First it starts out as "I'm independent", or "I'm a fence sitter", or "I'm a swinging voter", or  "I'm bipartisan" or "I haven't made my mind up". With each additional post  we hear "leftist" ,"warmist", "alarmist", "Al Gore"  and other denier or right wing memes.


Of course I'll supply my source, I'm sorry. I found this out from a 16 February article at Their source (it's linked) is, which says the basis is 2 documents obtained by a couple of "academics." Let me know what you think.

Thank you for the apology, I assure you it is much appreciated. The way I arrived at being an independent, to explain where I sit, is that I don't fit either the liberal/progressive nor the conservative mold. On economic issues, I tend to sound conservative-I am a business owner, kind of goes with the territory. On the other hand, I don't like the structuring of society within the constrictive bounds the way conservatives do. In the broad sense, I'm told I fit the libertarian mold; but after some investigation I'm not comfortable with that label, either.

Hope that helps, Phil.

Is there a good reason to trust Greenpeace's investigation and the conclusions made from it?

Unlike Harper...


And they clearly state their interests.

"Of course I'll supply my source, I'm sorry. I found this out from a 16 February article at Their source (it's linked) is, which says the basis is 2 documents obtained by a couple of "academics." Let me know what you think."

Kar98k, I appreciate you making an effort, but that link is a news site and not a reference from the institutions in question. Also, I cannot see anything mentioned on that site about GreenPeace. Can you copy the exact url/link?

"On economic issues, I tend to sound conservative-I am a business owner, kind of goes with the territory"

So am I and although coming from a conservative family, I don't subscribe to conservative economic issues in my country. If I lived in Europe, i would most likely be a conservative. Here in Australia, like the USA & Canada, the Conservatives look after those who fund them (big business) & largely ignore small business. Small business is by far the largets employer.

I also have a sense of social justice that is not in alignment with conservatives in my country and I trust science.


Harper has classified (verbatim) all environmental groups as opposition.


You're simply discussing the shade...

Perhaps I should give you who regularly contribute to these comment threads here, my intent in contributing at desmogblog. It's this: I hope to show you the independent's perspective. In doing so, I'm hoping at least some of you will come to understand what WE see when you're talking about the subject of climate change. Honestly, what I'm really hoping you see is how "the other people" (not necessarily those you term "deniers," but those like myself, who can see your concern but are-from your perspective-either apathetic or unsure what to make of all this) see you when you're trying to communicate the science.

An example might prove instructive. I've noticed a large number of you who are certain that anthropogenic greenhouse gasses are causing an eventual climate catastrophe habitually call those who disagree "deniers." I've come across videos on YouTube where this term is used in reference to such peeps. Greenman3610 has a good number. I've often wondered why. True, somebody was kind enough to answer me, and thought it was self-explanatory.

The problem? The tone and context in which the word is used is intended to be derogatory in nature. I don't mean to be insulting, if some of you are offended. From the response I got (Phil M, was that you? I've forgotten), it's clear that at least some of you who use the term mean no offense; however that is NOT the way it comes across to those of us who don't know all the fine details of the arguments. Honestly, it comes across as intentionally demeaning, derogatory, and intended as a slur on the target individual's character.

The point? Use of "denier" as a term for those who don't share your viewpoint on the subject of climate change doesn't go any distance towards making your point heard or understood, it simply turns off those who might simply lean slightly one way or the other. Look, I understand the frustration you likely experience with those who willingly "engage" you with the opposing view, but calling them by slurs like that makes it appear as if you have no other argument. I understand they call you by such pejoratives as "alarmists," or "warmistas." Honestly, it just makes everyone using those slurs look childish (if you'll forgive me for stating it so bluntly.)

My advice? Drop the word from your vocabulary, especially if you're a scientist. It would help the discourse.

They deny the science. The science is found in the peer reviewed scientific literature not on denier blogs.

In order to deny the science they have to resort to lies. misinformation, misinterpretation and other forms of scientific malfeasance.

They are despicable people who do this to further their selfish and political ends. If they do not like the term there is a simple answer, stop denying accepted and proven science and stop the lying.


I was accused of being an 'Alarmist' long before.

My crime was reading scientific reports and quoted them on blogs and was attacked for it.  Period.


In my world, you folks slung the first mud.  And... of course have no citations or logic backing yor claims.  nada zippo nuthin.


And I'm skeptical enough to look at whatever is shoveled in front of me.

Are you calling me a "denier," sir? I remind you, I take an indepent's viewpoint here- I don't know what to make of it. I don't pretend to understand the fine points of the science, just basics and some decent knowledge of scientific rigor. I can read abstracts and conclusions, and some statistical data, but the rest might as well be written in swahili for all the good it does me.

I might be more inclined to take your side if what I say here were taken to heart. As for somebody calling you an "alarmist," I'm sorry to hear it. But I would bet you anything that whoever did would say somebody else called him a "denier" first, and the one who called him a denier would echo you, and so on down the line. Doesn't make it right that anybody does that, does it?

My point, of my advice, was especially for SCIENTISTS (like Dr. Mann or Dr. Schmidt at RealClimate) to cease calling other scientists (like Dr. Spencer or Dr. Lindzen) by such pejoratives. When a scientist can cite science from the literature in making a case that you (the generic you) are exaggerating the problem (as Dr. Spencer does, for instance), calling such an individual a "denier" because they are "denying the science" looks from my viewpoint as if you (again, the generic you) are simply saying it to be mean-spirited.

Remember, I don't know any of you personally. I don't know which "side" to believe. I don't believe a "consensus" is necessarily correct, nor do I believe the "consensus" is made up of a conspiracy, either. This problem I'm discussing here (the use of denier as a slur) is only one of many blunders made that puts people like me into a type of undecided category.

Take care, and have a nice day, Oil man.

Where?  Got a link? Anything?

Here's a quote from Mann that I like;

"Mann speculates that perhaps Climategate and the attack campaign was the turning point when the denial movement tacitly accepted they had no honest, science-based case for denying human-caused global warming and had to resort to smearing and intimidation."


The interesting thing in the climategate emails is that the practicing deniers aren't getting hammered.  Got it?


As you know its perfectly acceptable to provide alternate points of view in scientific circles.  We can also use 'tricks'.  I do.  It also doesn't slow up publishing.  But remember... your accuracy is a matter of public record;


Finally, what you say in your private space is completely separate from your scientific one.  A fact that Bjorn Lomborg takes advantage of;

In his defence for a review of his book he says;

"The DCSD had not properly documented that The Skeptical Environmentalist was a scientific publication on which they had the right to intervene in the first place"

Yup... he argues its fiction.

Oh, I apologize. I forgot to show you where I've seen Drs. Mann and Schmidt use the term. You ever visit RealClimate? Not uncommon for them to use some variation of denier (like Schmidt's occasional use of denialosphere.

Now, please don't start about climategate. I'll give my take in due time, and you may be surprised at what I have to say. It's not anything I think you would object to, I don't think.

Thank you for your time.

I got concerned when I saw numerous attacks on science in completely unrelated spheres of my life.  In that case the people in question simply couldn't understand the difference between say a blogger, and a scientist.  (Important thing to figure out IMO.)  They also couldn't distinguish between something like Greenpeace and say, NASA.

In hunting for evidence to understand what the 'deniers' say... I began to wonder where they were getting their bunk.  And I kept running across desmogblog, which was confirming what I was finding.


Desmogblog is here for the purpose of exposing and countering paid opinion pieces which are designed to counter to scientific evidence.   Folks here are very concerned about the sources of opinions..  Which is why you hear terms like 'echo chamber' and 'meme spread' bandied about.


The reason for all this level of confusion is spelled out right here;


Anyways, we're all here not so much to debate the science... but to figure out 'why' people are saying what they are saying.

That's your problem right there. There are no "two sides". There is only science. What you claim to be the other side is the misinformation put out by the deniers. Why do you even go and look at denier sites, can't you tell the difference between science and junk and lies?

You sound like a typical concern troll to me. If you don't have the smarts to understand science then don't pretend that you do. Go and learn some science then you should be able to see the difference between real science and denier junk. Till then stop trolling.

Do you think it is "mean-spirited" to call a rapist a rapist, a murderer a murderer, a swindler a swindler, a liar a liar? Deniers are in the same category as those I have listed, they are determined to make future lives worse for future generations to ensure that their selfish needs are met today. How any rational person cannot see that perplexes me unless they are part of the selfish minority.


Unfortunately, I can't agree with the opinion that there aren't two sides. Both sides have scientists, scientists on both sides cite science from the peer reviewed journals, and both are usually correct in their citations (yes, there are exceptions on both sides). Prior to 2005 or 2006, I had no clue that there were two sides to the story, competing science, if you will. That's when Dr. Chris Landsea wrote his "open letter" criticizing the IPCC for failing to act on an alleged impropriety of Dr.Kevin Trenberth in mis-stating the state of science relating to hurricanes and global warming.

To call scientists who cite science to back up what they say clearly aren't "denying science," they're embracing competing science, "deniers" is clearly going to get people like me (for whom the jury is still out on who's right) to look at people who use that slur as at least a little nuts.

To call me a "troll" for trying to help you see you communication errors is another such mistake. Here, the .mistake is that you have Bush's "if you're not with us" mentality. Because the jury's out, in my opinion, doesn't mean I couldn't be persuaded to see this subject your way. By answering in such a hostile tone, you can only succeed in pushing me the other way.

What an idiot you are. Do you think that science laws work one way one day and another the next depending on whether it's Tuesday or Sunday?

Science laws are constant and unchanging. It is up to scientists to understand these laws. The laws which determine climate science are not unique they are the basic laws of physics and chemistry with a bit of biology thrown in.

Can you point me to an accepted peer reviewed paper which contradicts the literally thousands of papers which support the consensus on climate science?

There have been a few thrown out but none have stood the test of rigorous review (that is where debate in science happens not on some stage where a performing monkey does a gish gallop of nonsense not giving the scientists time to refute the numerous errors in the presentation).

There are so  many "last nail in the coffin" of climate science that there is more metal than wood in the coffin.

Please tell me one scientist that you think is correct in his science that there is no problem with accumulating green house gases. Lindzen is the closest but all his recent papers have been shown to be flawed. I won't even go into the dishonesty he shows in his presentations outside the peer reviewed science. See for example his recent load of lies, misinformation and deception shown in his recent presentation  in the UK Parliament building (note: the presentation was not to parliament).

And he is the best you have got.

Start reading some science and not the denier junk you seem to be addicted to. As far as I am concerned you are a troll, I will be nice and call you a concern troll, not one of the really bad ones but a troll non the less.

Climate science is not the only science where supposedly respected scientists deny the science, see HIV deniers (Nobel prize winner among that lot), asbestos is harmful deniers, smoking causes cancer deniers. If you and your ilk don't like being referred to as deniers there is a simple solution, stop denying accepted science.

...that you're not talking to some "denier?" I've told you, the jury's still out with me. I appreciate the lessening of the hostility, don't get me wrong. But I'm not here to play "devil's advocate." So, would you kindly refer to the "deniers" in the third person?

Just to check with you, are you asking what arguments they make with scientific references that I find so nagging?

You certainly behave as a denier. Learn some science then you will see how wrong you are.

If, as you say, you are not a denier, why haven't you answered the questions I put to you? Is it because if you answer them them correctly, in your view, it will prove my point? Why do you defend a dishonest scientist like Willie Soon? Only deniers get upset when they are called deniers. I deny a lot of things, I deny that I have ever robbed a bank, i deny that I have ever committed murder. If you call me a denier because of these I will not get upset. Denying science because it will interfere with your selfish mindset is why you don't like the terrm, it says too much about your character.

Deniers are despicable people  Time for you to leave their cabal and behave in an honest manner.

You make too many assumptions, Ian. The first is that I'm here to play "devil's advocate," I'm not. The next is that I don't understand ANY of the science. Admittedly, I don't understand the fine technicalities of climate science, but I DO understand the basics of why you think this is an urgent problem-and why those you call "deniers" don't. The other assumption you make seems to be that anyone who doesn't 100% agree with you is the same as a "denier." Placing people who haven't decided for themselves who's right into the same category as those you accuse of deliberately deceiving others is never a way to convince anyone that you're right. In fact, it has the exact opposite effect.

Why won't I "answer the question?" What question? As for "defending Willie Soon," when did I ever mention his name, let alone defend him? I think you need to chillax, Ian.

Have a nice day, hope you'll tell what question you want me to answer.

Well I've had my dose of trolls for today, I hope the rest of my day will be more productive and informative.

OK they weren't questions but requests can't you tell the difference?

Its not like guys are contributing or anything.

of "lying," now it's your turn, hmmm? You want to know why I don't "answer your questions," rhetorically come up with false reasons I supposedly won't, then admit when asked that they weren't "questions," but "requests." That's ground to accuse you of hypocrisy, friend. I advise you, don't mischaracterize someone else's mistakes, or you could end up having the same done to you.

You may not lose the hostility, much I wish you would, but you should govern your passions. If you don't, they will govern you, and passion never governs wisely.

He is both a liar and an idiot, a bad combination for someone who calls himself after a dangerous weapon. In fact his name may have Godwined himself.

I'm not the one calling people such things as "idiot" repeatedly. You claim "denier" isn't intended as offensive, but the term "idiot" isn't innocuous, pal. Nor is calling them a "troll" on a blog comment. Honestly, I've put up with about all the garbage I'm going to take from you.

My suggestion? You might try listening for once, instead of slinging garbage.

kar98k, if you object to the terms I have called you, then there is a simple response, stop lying, stop acting like a troll and behave in a decent manner. You do understand the meaning of "troll" when used on the internet?

You still haven't responded to my questions/request. Funny how trolls never answer questions, isn't it? Afraid your answers will show up your ignorance of climate science?

You might do something that courteous. If you want to discuss science, I'm fine with that. Just remember, I bluntly told you I'm no expert. I haven't even presented myself as anything of the sort. I presume you're going to "request" that I cite at least one peer-reviewed paper from the scientific journals, am I right? Yes or no will do.

I don't think you'd even pass a turing test.

My circuits failed to distinguish which human was communicating. Diagnostics showed the firmware wasn't capable of withstanding human hostility. Some modification was necessary...LOL.

"Can you point me to an accepted peer reviewed paper which contradicts the literally thousands of papers which support the consensus on climate science?"

"Please tell me one scientist that you think is correct in his science that there is no problem with accumulating green house gases"

You claim that you are no expert but you are trying to tell anyone who understands science and climate science that we are wrong and you are right. For example your "two sides" nonsense. Why don't you go and read up on some real and honest information before jumping blindly in and showing that you are a Dunning Kruger syndrome sufferer?

Answer my questions and we will see just how much you have been taken in by the dishonest denier nonsense.

First, I'm going to correct you. I'm not telling you that you're wrong on the science, I'm telling you that you're wrong in the way you communicate it to undecided people, like me. Makes me think the "deniers" have a case. I already told you of one mistake, now your next: you refuse to acknowledge that the competing side even exists.

Now, let's get that paper out there that you asked for, yes? One that sticks out from the dissenters is this one: Loehle, C. & Scafetta, N., Climate Change Attribution using Empirical Decomposition of Climatic Data, The Open Atmospheric Science Journal 5: 74-86 (2011). In this paper, the authors report that between 50%-60% of climate change since 1850 can be accounted for by the natural forcings the used, and at least 50% of it since 1970. Their projection is that temperatures in 2100 will be about 0.6 degrees Celsius above the 2000 level.

Now, before you answer, I'm going to say I've already seen critiques of this paper. I don't have time right now, but I'll get back in a couple of hours to see which one you use, and which expert.

Take care

Of the dissenters, I would likely pick Dr. Roy Spencer. He (like practically all the dissenting scientists I've noticed) acknowledges the temperature rise, and the virtual certainty of an anthropogenic component to it. What the dispute is over is how much warming is likely to occur as a result of human greenhouse emissions and the likely impacts on the climate from that warming. The point dissenters like Dr. Spencer make is that the warming is likely minor, as are the impacts.

Me? Like I keep telling you, I haven't decided which side is right. I'm here to point out to you that your hostile attitude and poor manners are undermining your cause-not to mention that Peter Gleick didn't help matters with the fraud he admitted to committing.

I asked:

"Please tell me one scientist that you think is correct in his science that there is no problem with accumulating green house gases."

And you respond with Spencer? Get a grip on reality. You are doing your best to show everyone that you are a dishonest denier. You may not know which "side" is right but you can certainly show which "side" is wrong.

There are lots and lots of other articles on the lack of scientific ability and honesty of this character.

The only thing I am undermining, and you are doing a better job than me, is your honesty and knowledge of science

Again I repeat, try better next time.

as incompetent and dishonest as you say, then point me to the investigation that had him removed from his position at University of Alabama-Huntsville, and from leading the operation of the satellite data that is handled from there. You say he's dishonest? If that's true, he'd have been removed a long time ago and been making his living as a janitor. You say he lacks scientific ability? If that's true, then how did he even get his Oh. D.?

Really, Ian? A scientist disputes a hypothesis, and he's now incompetent and dishonest? And I'm to accept that assertion without proof?

Why haven't Lindzen, Ball, Michaels, Wegman Patterson et al. not been removed? This is a major failing of our Institutions, they will not censure (note: I didn't say censor) their members when they behave in a dishonest and potentially illegal manner especially when the results of their malfeasance will have such a detrimental effect on all of our and future lives.

The fact that they are still there does not mean, as you seem to imply, that they have done no wrong, they have and have been let off for their misdemeanors.

Its perfectly legal for them to do what ever they like in their spare time... because its not science.  Just ask Bjorn Lomborg about how to do non-science.


So... you get the heart of the matter and look at the papers.

Are they getting quoted?  Are they getting used in further research?  You'll find that good research papers get used.  A lot.  Bad ones are ignored like a bad smell.


Even writing a single paper is obviously not enough.  IT MUST BE REUSED FOR FURTHER RESEARCH. They are typically so focused that they miss other or related areas of study.  Any such ideas must be tested rigorously by many many scientists.   That is heart of Climate Science today.


My wife's master's thesis is quoted in more journals more than Spencer's work.


Here's a cut down on Spensor's work;

And the fallout for his crappy work;

Dr. Spencer and the others still work as scientists because the institutions they work for won't act; and the we know the institutional safeguards failed because the"deniers" still work as scientists. Cute.

You may sit there calling well-pedigreed scientists by whatever slur and insulting words you can dig up, but it does nothing to convince me that you're right.

kar98k bemoans:

"A scientist disputes a hypothesis, and he's now incompetent and dishonest?"

He is not being called incompetent because he is disputing a theory, he is being called that because the papers he publishes are rubbish and put into obscure journals. Do you not find it telling that the only people you can bring up in support of your anti-AGW junk science are people with a history of incompetence and dishonesty? Have you tried to find a competent and honest one? Of course you have tried but there are none around. Get a life.

hatchet jobs, perhaps another expert may be more to your liking. I'll select Dr. Mike Hulme. He's a climatologist, doesn't believe in an imminent catastrophe, and even dislikes the apocalyptic language and stated absolute certainty of documents like IPCC AR4's Summary for Policymakers. He's a co-author of The Hartwell Paper, which I generally agree with, and was greatly disappointed with the "climategate" emails when they became public.



This is a guest post by Kert Davies, cross-posted with permission from Climate Investigations Center.

This week the Heartland Institute will release another chapter of its NIPCC, the “not the IPCC” document that will tell you the opposite of the main message that’s been coming from the prestigious IPCC...

read more