Thu, 2007-08-23 08:30Kevin Grandia
Kevin Grandia's picture

In the DeSmogosphere Archive Aug 23, 2007

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.

Pages

Subscribe to DeSmogBlog