Distinguished Scientist Calls Heartland 500 List “Offensive and Wrong”

Thu, 2008-05-01 09:18Richard Littlemore
Richard Littlemore's picture

Distinguished Scientist Calls Heartland 500 List “Offensive and Wrong”

“This is just another example of lack of scruples that climate skeptics have shown in pursuing short-term financial advantages, and basically condemning the next generations to suffer the consequences of climate change due to our lack of prudent and responsible planning.”

With those words, the University of Maryland’s Distinguished Professor Eugenia Kalnay dismissed the Heartland Institute’s wholly discredited list of 500 Scientists with Documented Doubts about Man-Made Global Warming Scares.

Prof. Kalnay, with dozens of her colleagues, is outraged that Heartland Senior Fellow Dennis T. Avery included their names as contributors to a climate-change denial paper without their permission and in direct contradiction to their scientific work.

“I think it is very offensive and wrong to include my name in this list of ‘coauthors’ of a paper with which I disagree profoundly without even checking with me first,” Prof. Kalnay said in an interview today.

“I am not a climate change skeptic. To the contrary, I believe that, in addition to the undeniable greenhouse warming, we also have to consider the effects of deforestation and urbanization, which will make the warming even worse.

“I am sure the good scientists that I personally know who are in that list, are in a similar situation, and their names have been used without permission, and their ideas about climate change distorted.”

Prof. Kalnay is not a frequent or willing participant in the tawdry public relations war over climate change. She is a Distinguished Professor, a former Director of the Environmental Modeling Center for the National Weather Service and the lead author of the most cited paper in all geosciences

She is also gracious and respectful of the serious scientists who, for reasons she does not understand, choose today to challenge the science of global warming. She calls Richard Lindzen “charming and brilliant” and says that she has found some of Roger A. Pielke on the impact of land surface changes on climate “very inspiring.”

Unfortunately, this is also not the first time her name has been appended to a contrarian work without her permission. Fiction writer Michael Crighton included one of her papers among the scientific “references” that he included in his climate-change denial book State of Fear, although Prof. Kalnay said she had no idea how he was using her work to arrive at any of his conclusion. (A summary of the paper that Crighton quoted can be found here.)

Previous Comments

Thats rich…. So to speak.

The list is only discredited by you.
Which means approximately nothing.

It is not any different than the Wholly Discredited IPCC list.

We are just seeing a few scientists getting scared beacuse their funding is threatened by the AGW Cult faithful.
It does not change what they wrote.
Nothing new here.

Better get those Taxes passed into law fast.
People are starting to wake up…….

Not discredited by Richard – but by the scientists Avery inappropriately presumed to list as “co-authors”. What was he thinking? Could he possibly have imagined they wouldn’t find out? They know what they wrote, Troll – do you? As for those who want their names taken off the IPCC report, why don’t you refresh my memory? Who are they, and what are their reasons?

Fern Mackenzie

Dr. Landsea is probably the most famous, but certainly not alone.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/Story?id=3751219&page=2

The reasons vary but mot boil down to: they don’t agree……

Some scientists just can’t stand behind the agenda of the AGW industry to ” strike a balance between effectiveness (AGW advocacy) and honesty “

“This is nonsense,” says Tom V. Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the same IPCC. He laments the paucity of geologic knowledge among IPCC scientists – a knowledge that is central to understanding climate change, in his view, since geologic processes ultimately determine the level of atmospheric CO2.

“The IPCC needs a lesson in geology to avoid making fundamental mistakes,” he says. “Most leading geologists, throughout the world, know that the IPCC’s view of Earth processes are implausible if not impossible.”

“geologic processes ultimately determine the level of atmospheric CO2”

True, but on geologic time scales.

Unfortunately CO2 is increasing ~100 times faster than it does on geologic timescales. (~2 ppmv/year vs ~.02 ppmv/year)

One would think Segalstad would know this, being a geologist and all.

FORMERLY an expert reviewer with the same IPCC

BTW: Take another look at historical CO2 rise and fall.
But since CO2 is not the problem, it is a moot point.

At no time in the ice core record did CO2 rise by more .06 ppmv/year, which means the current rate is still more than 33 times more rapid than even the fastest rise at the end of a glaciation.

As to CO2 not being a problem, such pronouncements come from profound ignorance and deep denial of reality.

two srtiking differences here are that landsea, christy and reiter actually did contribute to the report, and were alive at the time….

KEvron

The AGW cult. That’s bloody rich. I’m literally laughing out loud. I can just see that cult of scientists, government leaders sitting around their secret hide out in purple hooded robes plotting the greatestconspiarcy the worls has ever seen. They sneak around in the night, stealthily melting glaciers and polar ice with flame throwers and turn on giant baseboard heaters hidden in the mountains to raise global temperatures!!

And they end their night by throwing millions of boulders into the ocean to raise sea levels.

Seriously Troll, whatever meds your taking for your psychosis aren’t working. Go get on on new prescription you freak!

It comes as to no suprise that the same fools who believe in global warming are into the cult of evolution and oppose Intelligent Design.

Ha ha, you’re pretending, to be provocative. But you are right, the reverse is even more interesting, that climate science deniers are often biology deniers as well (but since they post under fake names, who can tell).

One of the regular denialst posters here lumps ‘warmers’ in with intelligent designers, asserting that both are pseudo-science lunatics.

Now we have an anti-science creationist lumping ‘warmers’ in with evolutionists, asserting that both are cults consisting of atheist fools.

Strange bedfellows indeed.

By the way, I guess you didn’t get the memo from the discovery institute:
‘intelligent design’ is not to be connected with religious belief or creationism.

When talking to media that is, when talking to christian groups thats an entirely different story, then it is about religious belief!

but he also didn’t get the memo from Pat Robertson that God doesn’t like humans trashing His fair Earth or causing global warming.

Then again, maybe he’s an end-timer who wants to bring on the floods, droughts, storms, crop failures, pestilence and resource wars to hasten the rapture.

Nice folks those believers, eh?

differ markedly from those of scholarship. Michael Crighton didn’t have to cite any particular statement or research by Prof. Kalnay that supported his conclusions, only that he had read what she wrote. A glance through his citations or bibliography or whatever that is that he tacked on to his book (which I borrowed from the library’s FICTION section) will show that his intent was to give the impression that he had actually done some serious research into the subject. He fooled at least one person, a friend of mine who recommended the book to me. I have since had a serious talk with this friend.

Fern Mackenzie

Could the inclusion of these scientists on this list not be considered libel? And if so, is anyone attempting to bring together these scientists to start a lawsuit?

Are you sure that John Lefebvre, the top financial benefactor of the DeSmog Blog is really interested in any more notice from the courts?
Don’t think it would be wise……

Google: money laundering and desmog

Did just that. Top link is, unsurprisingly, from the Heartland institute “Blog Funder Guilty of Money-Laundering - by James M. Taylor”. This is completely incorrect. Check real news, and you might see that money laundering is NOT the charge to which was pled guilty in the end. It was conspiracy to promote gaming in the state of New York.

So go take your misrepresentative claims elsewhere, or at least read something other than heartland.org.

(an earlier version of this letter was posted on the NZ Flat Earth Society’s blog)

=== Open Letter to All Galilean Freedom-Lovers ===

Dear Ms. Marohasy, Mr. Watts, Mr. Brash, Mr. Pielke Sr., Mr. Pielke Jr., Mr. McIntyre, et al. et al. et al.,

I deeply regret to observe that you have failed to make any mention in your blog of Heartland Institute’s recent list of scientists who have cast doubts on global warming. Here is a sample of the list, available via http://tinyurl.com/6zjxy4:

Rahmstorf, Stefan, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany; Randall, David, A., NASA; Ratto, N., University of Buenos Aires, Argentina; Raymo, Maureen, MIT; Reeh, Niels, Technical University of Denmark; Reynolds, C.P., University of Waikato, New Zealand; Richard, Y., University of Cape Town, S. Africa; Richter, D.K., Ruhr-University, Germany; Rietti-Shati, M., Weizmann Institute, Rehovot, Israel; Rind, David, NASA; Ritz, C., French National Center for Scientific Research; Roberts, Neil, Loughborough University of Technology, UK; Rodrigo, F.S., University of Almerla, Spain; Roth, Kurt, University of Heidelberg, Germany; Rouault, M., University of Bourgogne, France; Ruddiman, William F., University of Virginia; Running, Steven E., University of Montana; Sabade, S.S., Indian Institute of Meteorology; Sagarin, R.D., University of California/Santa Barbara; Salinger, M. J., National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, New; Zealand; Sanchez Goni, M.F., University of Bordeaux; Sarnthein, Michael, University of Kiel, Germany; Sass, Louis C., III, Colorado College; Sawada, Michael, University of Ottawa; Saxe, Henrik, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural School of Denmark; Schilman, Bettina, Geological Survey of Israel; Schmidt, Gavin J., University of Virginia; Schmith, Torben, Danish Meteorological Institute; Schoell, Martin, Chevron Petroleum Technology Co.; Schuster, P.F., USGS; Schweingruber, F.H., Swiss Federal Research Institute; Servant, Marie, Orstom, France; Servant-Vildary, Simone, French National Museum of Natural History; Severinghaus, Jeffrey P., Scripps Institution of Oceanography; Shaviv, Nir, Hebrew University of Jerusalem; Shemesh, Aldo, Weizmann Institute, Rehovot, Israel; Shen, Pu Yu, University of Western Ontario; Shindell, Drew T., NASA; Shoji, H., Kitami Institute of Technology, Japan; Showers, William, North Carolina State; Siddoway, Christine, Colorado College; Sidorova, O.V., Sukachev Institute of Forest, Russia; Sigman, Daniel M., Princeton University; Simmons, A.D., University of Leeds; Slingo, Anthony, Hadley Centre, UK; Smith Ronald Lewis, British Antarctic Survey; Smith, Raymond C., University of California/Santa Barbara; Soden, Brian, J., NOAA; Sohlenius, Gunnar, Swedish Royal Institute of Technology; Sonechkin, Dmitry M., Hydrometeorological Research Centre of Russia; Soon, Willie, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Atmospheric Research; Sousa, A., University of Sevilla; Southward, A.J., Marine Biological Association; Spaulding, W. Geoffrey, University of Arizona; Stammerjohn, Sharon, University of California/Santa Barbara; Steffenson, J.P., University of Copenhagen; Stockton, Charles W., University of Arizona; Stone, John, University of Washington; Street-Perrott, Alayne A., Oxford University; Stuiver, Minze, University of Washington; Sturm, Matthew, U.S. Army Cold Regions Research; Sud, Y.C., Goddard Institute; Sugden, David E., University of Edinborough, Scotland; Sun, Weizhen, Chinese Academy of Sciences; Susskind, Joel, Goddard Institute; Sveinbjornsdottir, A.E., University of Iceland; Svenared, O., University of Stockholm; Svensmark, Hendrik, Danish Space Research Institute; Tape, Kenneth, U.S. Army Cold Regions Research; Tappa, Eric, University of South Carolina; Thomas, Chris D., University of Leeds; Thompson, L.G., Ohio State;

http://tinyurl.com/6zjxy4

As a concerned citizen and defender of freedom and all that it stands for, I have a few questions I need to ask. May I know why you are being silent on the Heartland 500 list, and the oppression from the scientific inquisiton against the academics that are mentioned on the list? Has your good self been intimidated by the forces of the Left into keeping quiet as well? Is your blog now selling out to the freedom-destroying agenda of Al Gore?

I would appreciate it if you can offer me answers to my humble questions. Thank you.

– Frank Bi, International Journal of Inactivism, http://frankbi.wordpress.com/

= = =

P.S. I hereby call upon all lovers of freedom to disseminate this letter to all self-proclaimed “skeptic” blogs which do not discuss the “Heartland 500” list.

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

Why did Al Gore invent global warming?

I think that he’s angry because he lost the election to Bush.

Al Gore says all kinds of things and all the lefties believe him, yet when 450 experts speak out, the lefty media buries it.

for you have to be truly ignorant to pose such an stupid opening question.

The idea that atmospheric gases trap heat and prevent it from from radiating away to space began with the work of Joseph Fourier in the 1820s, which showed that a bare rock at the Earth’s distance from the Sun should be far colder than Earth actually is. I don’t think Al Gore was around back then.

Nor was he around in 1859 when John Tyndall demonstrated by laboratory experiment that both H2O and CO2 could block infrared light, aka heat.

And Al wasn’t around in 1896 when Svante Arrhenius calculated that halving the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would lower the average surface temperature on Earth some 4-5°C.

But Al was born in 1938, the same year that Guy Callendar calculated that doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would raise the average surface temperature on Earth by 2°C.

And Gore was just a college student in 1958 when Roger Revelle began measuring the steady increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.

Maybe you might want to do just a wee bit of homework before you make yourself look like such a fool next time.

Something doesn’t sound right there, a few things, in fact.

Gore was born in 1948, not 1938, so he was a college student in 1968, not 1958.

And Revelle discovered in 1957 that the ocean would not absorb human-generated CO2 as fast as it was being emitted.

It was Charles Keeling, who was hired by Revelle, who began measuring atmospheric CO2 in 1958.

As the saying goes, haste makes.

It seems clear from posts like this, and from pubs like Canada Freep Press, etc., that many deniers never heard of global warming until they heard it from Al Gore. Amazing. The North American public is out of touch not only with the natural world, but even with basic reading.

I’m all for healthy debate about climate change, as with any subject, so long as the arguments presented are intellectually valid, factually supported, and fair. If Heartland needs to marshall support of their causes with misleading evidence, then I’m less inclined to believe their case is strong. http://www.getsolar.com/blog/

seems avery has a history of peddling bandini.

http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1999Q4/avery.html

KEvron

thanks

[x]

The NYTimes just ran “Hard-Nosed Advice From Veteran Lobbyist: ‘Win Ugly or Lose Pretty’ - Richard Berman Energy Industry Talk Secretly Taped”. Rick Berman has long been the architect of “public charities” for any client willing to pay. Berman's Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF, EIN 26-0006579) evolved...

read more