VIDEO: Heartland CEO Confronted Over Barre Seid's Funding of IPCC Attacks

Yesterday, the Heritage Foundation hosted The Heartland Institute's CEO Joseph Bast, along with two of Heartland's contracted climate denial scientists (Willie Soon and Bob Carter), to present their new report that denies the seriousness of global warming. Greenpeace was there to ask Heartland about the report's funders, including billionaire Barre Seid, and to challenge Heartland's assertion that their work has any scientific validity (it doesn't). See the video for yourself.

Heartland's “Climate Change Reconsidered,” written by the usual climate denier suspects under the guise of the “Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change” (NIPCC) is intended to undermine new scientific findings from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Despite what Joe Bast and Heartland comms director Jim Lakely claim, their false report is not peer-reviewed, a formal process conducted by editors at actual scientific journals have other qualified scientists rigorously review and critique submitted work if it is to be approved for publication.

You'll notice that Heartland's climate denial report isn't being published in any scientific journals, but rather from Heartland itself. This is because the document is a public relations tool intended to keep politicians and the public doubting that global warming is worth addressing.

While Heartland continues politicizing science, demonizing credible scientists and using tobacco industry tactics to forge doubt over global warming, Americans are feeling the real toll climate change is already taking on society, by increasing the severity of storms like hurricane Sandy or pushing droughts, wildfires and heatwaves to new extremes.

Heartland doesn't care, or even recognize, that global warming is already costing the global economy $1.2 trillion dollars and contributing to 400,000 deaths each year. They don't care that billion-dollar weathers disasters, intensified by climate change, are on the rise and impacting the U.S. economy and our infrastructure. Nor do they accept repeated research indicating the overwhelming consensus among credential climate scientists that human fossil fuel use is the primary driver of unnatural global warming–in fact Heartland's staff have repeatedly lied to cast doubt upon that research.

Originally published on Polluterwatch.


Here's the policy maker summary of the 2013 report “Climate Change Reconsidered:”

This is the report that will get downloaded and read-not-read by 99 and 44/100th of those interested in the climate not changing due to man. The two key individuals in preparation of the report are the editors: S.T. Karnick and Diane Bast. These guys are essentially the project managers or client representatives, assuming Heartland acts like a technical consulting firm. Eventhough the report in total may have been prepared and written by scientists with some degree of scientific understanding, these two guys are resonsible for what's in the report. Neither of them have any background of merit in anything remotely near climate science. Their background is what is expected from public relations flacks and image consultants. God bless them. We all need to earn a living. I think I'll follow the work of old fashion governmental scientists on climate change thank you. Here's the Heartland bio of the report editors:

The implications of climate change are colossal  – no one WANTS global warming destabilization - it's gonna be increasingly painful and upsetting.  So many will look for any possibility of magical events. 

The Heartland deniers just have to put SOMETHING out there.  It really doesn't need to be good science, or any science at all.   Everyone desperately wanting global warming to go away will just click with this like Dorothy clicked her Ruby Slippers.  

The video image and sound say it best, these guys are shills and used car salesmen, pandering to wishes, so anything would do. A quick scan of the document - there is no there, there.  Their contemptuous disregard of any questions confirms the power of their token document.   

Creative problem definition and solutions sales is environmental consulting stock in trade. One group present plan A. Another group refutes plan A and proposes plan B. A third group refutes the problem definition and presents a new definition demonstrating that there really isn't a problem. The third group usually wins. Coming off like a fixer, which is Heartland's stock in trade.

I have little faith in us earthlings taking action in mitigating climate change. So we'll probably just have to learn to adapt. I'm an engineer and geoengineering seems like sisyphean task. Hucksters of all strips will be working that room. It's amazing how well engineers and scientists can do a hard sell. 


Joe Bast, I certainly hope people are getting their information from desmogblog.

I don't think Heartland double checked what they wrote.  There is a lot of magic thinking to somehow reach the conclusions they do.

Most of the science supporting measurements of the medieval warming period also indicate there were mega droughts in the US and that conditions were harsher in the rest of the world.  But its good news if you live in Greenland!

Why is Mann 1998 still getting flogged?  The point is that Mann 1998 is not longer a driving paper, and hardly relavant. There are dozens and dozens of papers that replicated the results without tree rings.  Here's two that I know.

Huang 2000,  (Boreholes)…

Smith 2006, (Stalagmites, which aren't trees)

Lets just pretend that McItyre and McKitrick were correct.  You understand that the detrending step that McIntyre and McKitrick did not perform (read the code, its not there) on their number sets was the removal of the effects of precipitation on tree growth.  That's right McIntyre and McKitrick are stating that tree growth is not dependent on water.  Does anyone else on earth think you can grow trees without water besides McIntyre and McKitrick, and Bast?  Anyone? Hmmm?  Can you trust scientists who defend that belief?

If you are going to cite peer reviewed papers you must use the most relevant.  McIntyre and company have not countered Huybers 2005.  Ergo, they are wrong. I mean, if you're going to rest on the laurels of peer review, you have to keep up.

“[12] The MM05 code generated realizations of x having roughly a fourth the variance of y, biasing RE realizations toward being too large. MM05 thus estimate a RE critical value substantially higher (RE = 0.6) than that of MBH98 (RE = 0.0) and incorrectly conclude that the AD1400 step of the MBH98 temperature reconstruction is insignificant. When the MM05 algorithm is corrected to include the variance adjustment step and re-run, the estimated RE critical value comes into agreement with the MBH98 estimate. (Data and computer codes used for PCA analysis and the estimation of critical values are provided as auxiliary material.)”

I think they need to send this back to the drawing board for a full rewrite.

Joe Bast at 1:18

'You just can't just lie and defame scientists…'

Wow. Talk about cognitive dissonance and doublethink.