Wed, 2007-08-22 15:21Kevin Grandia
Kevin Grandia's picture

Interval measures - Part 5 of "Ew, I just stepped in a Heartland study!"

This is part 4 in a series on the Heartland Institute's supposedly rigorous study (pdf) on the state of global warming science. This flawed paper has been distributed to 10,000 Utahns by the Utah-based Sutherland Institute, a “sister” of the Heartland Institute.

Paul T. Mero, the president of the Sutherland Institute claims that, “for skeptics, we went out of our way to include a special analysis of the methodology used to create this study. This report is an honest reflection of the international scientific community…”

Let's see how that holds up.

Flaw #1: Heartland's study makes incorrect assumptions about levels of agreement and disagreement

Wed, 2007-08-22 14:55Kevin Grandia
Kevin Grandia's picture

Leading questions - Part 4 of "Ew, I just stepped in a Heartland study!"

This is part 4 in a series on the Heartland Institute's supposedly rigorous study (pdf) on the state of global warming science. This flawed paper has been distributed to 10,000 Utahns by the Utah-based Sutherland Institute, a “sister” of the Heartland Institute.

Paul T. Mero, the president of the Sutherland Institute claims that, “for skeptics, we went out of our way to include a special analysis of the methodology used to create this study. This report is an honest reflection of the international scientific community…”

Let's see how that holds up.

Flaw #3: Heartland's study uses leading questions

Wed, 2007-08-22 14:37Kevin Grandia
Kevin Grandia's picture

A snapshot in time: Part 3 of "Ew, I just stepped in a Heartland study!"

This is part 3 in a series on the Heartland Institute's supposedly rigorous study (pdf) on the state of global warming science. This flawed paper has been distributed to 10,000 Utahns by the Utah-based Sutherland Institute, a “sister” of the Heartland Institute.

Paul T. Mero, the president of the Sutherland Institute claims that, “for skeptics, we went out of our way to include a special analysis of the methodology used to create this study. This report is an honest reflection of the international scientific community…”

Let's see how that holds up.

Flaw #2: Heartland's study is based on opinions from 4 years ago

Wed, 2007-08-22 14:16Kevin Grandia
Kevin Grandia's picture

Random Sampling - Part 2 of "Ew, I just stepped in a Heartland study!"

This is part 2 in a series on the Heartland Institute's supposedly rigorous study (pdf) on the state of global warming science. This flawed paper has been distributed to 10,000 Utahns by the Utah-based Sutherland Institute, a “sister” of the Heartland Institute.

Paul T. Mero, the president of the Sutherland Institute claims that, “for skeptics, we went out of our way to include a special analysis of the methodology used to create this study. This report is an honest reflection of the international scientific community…”

Let's see how that holds up.

Flaw #1: Heartland's study is not based on a random sample.

Wed, 2007-08-22 13:35Kevin Grandia
Kevin Grandia's picture

Utah's "Sutherland Institute" joins the Heartland misinformation campaign

Part 1 of “Ew, I just stepped in a Heartland study!”

A headline on Utah's KCPW public radio exclaims “Conservative Think Tank Says Global Warming Needs More Study,” originates from a news release issued by a group calling themselves the “Sutherland Institute.”

Sutherland president Paul T. Mero argues that there is so much uncertainty surrounding the science of climate change that it is just too early for government to form any public policy.

Mero and his Institute are touting a “study” (pdf) released earlier this year by their “sister” think tank, the dubious Heartland Institute as evidence of their conclusion.

Pages

Subscribe to DeSmogBlog