If you haven't watched Jessica Williamson and Zaproot, you really should take a second and check it out. They do a very high quality weekly environment news wrap up.
And you should really watch this week's episode, because it has a feature on yours truly and the Heartland Institute 500 story we broke the other week on DeSmog. As I mentioned to Zaproot producer Damien Somerset, there's really nothing quite like watching Jessica talk about you online!
Although Heartland President and CEO Joseph Bast conceded on Monday that his organization had been wrong to present the scientists as people who personally and professionally doubted the proof of humankind's impact on the climate, he refused to respond to the demands from dozens of those scientists to have their names removed entirely from the web-published “paper.”
Heartland President Joseph Bast rationalizes that aside from the misleading headline, “none of the articles and news releases produced by The Heartland Institute or the Hudson Institute (the original source of the lists) claims that all of the scientists who appear in the lists currently doubt that the modern warming is man-made.”
At least two subjects in a Heartland Institute DVD that challenges the science of global warming say they were tricked into participating.
Rie Oldenburg, curator of the Narsaq Museum in Southern Greenland, and Ingibjorg Gisladottir, a guide to the Brattahlid Ruins (the original site of Eric the Red, Greenland settlement) say they were told they were contributing to a video on Norse history. Both were horrified to learn that their interviews were used to contribute to a DVD that denies the human contribution to climate change.
Notwithstanding these requests - and many more, as well - as of 4 p.m. EST on Friday, May 2, 2008, the offending article remained on the Heartland website with the names all still attached. There is no apology, clarification or correction. It's as if Heartland President and CEO Joseph Bast just doesn't care about the accuracy of his output or the credibility of his organization ….
“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.”
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.
“Bond, G., Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory;” “Bradbury, J. Pratt, USGS;” and “Keeling, Charles D., Scripps Institute of Oceanography” are all deceased and therefore unable to join the chorus of legitimate scientists who are demanding that their names be removed from the list.
The article is written by Dennis Avery, a “Senior Fellow” at the Heartland Institute. The article which was first published by another think tank called the Hudson Institute, where Avery is also listed as a “Senior Fellow,” has bounced around the internet as proof that there is great doubts about the realities of human-caused global warming.
We emailed 122 of the scientists and in less than 24 hours more than 35 scientists have responded in outrage.
And who are you that we should care one whit about your opinion?
With that tart quip, Diane Bast of the Heartland Institute dismissed a recent query about the rationale for its last-stand global warming denial conference. Diplomatic Diane, presumably, is related to Joseph Bast, founder and president of the Heartland Institute.
Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.
There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.