Denial-a-Palooza: Where Are All the Scientists That Deniers Love To Talk About?

Read time: 3 mins
Where are all the scientists?

Wake up and smell the fossil fuel funding. That’s right, it’s that time of year again: the Heartland Institute is hosting its Sixth (annual?*) International Conference on Climate Change over the next two days in Washington D.C.

DeSmogBlog already revealed some of the oily sponsors behind the event. Now it’s time to take a look at the so-called scientists Heartland has rounded up to accomplish this year’s theme of “Restoring the Scientific Method.”   

As in past years, Heartland’s speakers list is dominated by economists, engineers, TV weathermen, and representatives from right wing think-tanks. DeSmogBlog has researched the speakers at this year’s event: 

DeSmogBlog also added new names to the disinformation database this year (some long overdue):

    Scott Denning, who also spoke at last year’s Heartland Conference, is notably absent from this list. The reason being that Denning actually acknowledges man-made global warming (see his presentation at last year’s conference). Denning is a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University, and appears to be one of a small handful of legitimate climate scientists in the crowd. 

    Why then, you might ask, has the Heartland Institute not only invited Denning back this year, but also featured him prominently on the ICCC6 home page? Apparently Heartland actually scheduled a debate between Denning and Roy Spencer

    Whether he recognizes it or not, Denning serves as a false stamp of legitimacy for this non-scientific conference.

    Brian Angliss over at Scholars & Rogues has more to say about the dearth of actual climate scientists attending Denial-a-Palooza this year.

    *This will be Heartland’s sixth conference in the past four years: the first was in March 2008, the second in March 2009, third in June 2009, fourth in May 2010, fifth in October 2010, and now the sixth in June 2011.

    ** Senator James Inhofe, who was set to be the opening key note speaker, sent his regrets this morning claiming he is “under the weather.”  Perhaps he was referring to the brutal drought conditions affecting his constituents back in Oklahoma, as Joe Romm from ClimateProgress postulates.

    Get DeSmog News and Alerts


    It is unlikely that any of the most prominent peopagandists would dare show their faces at a forum for real science.

    they might be asked some real questions and that would be sooooooo embarrassing when they could not provide credible answers.

    after all, they have all been warned to Never Debate a sceptic.
    since every time one has, they have been humiliated.

    You are totally right, see for example :

    … Sorry, you meant of course [the skeptics] have been humiliated ? Rhetorical question I know, but better be sure :trollface:


    Actually, I would be interested if you could point out any debate on the Science of AGW where the alarmists actually won the argument.

    I have not heard of any such events.

    I am pleased to fulfill your wishes. I let the reader see the youtube link just above and make his own opinion on the debate between Santer and Michaels.

    thank rather Peter Sinclair for that, he watched the whole hearing and kept the most interesting exchanges. His work is definitively outstanding.
    I would suggest everyone to watch also the exchange between Alley and Rohrabacher here during the same hearing : Alley explains lots of things very clearly and nicely, one can feel that he is both a good scientist and a good science communicator. As for Rohrabacher, well … the video is self-explanatory.

    It is not a forum for climate science or any other kind of science. It is a rally conceived as a propaganda event.

    For Harrison Schmidt to have descended to the same level as Ball, Carter, Horner, Soon, Watts, Taylor and Michaels let alone Morano who reminds me of the Tolkein mountain trolls and hayseed Inhofe.

    And what weight lawyers, barristers etc can add is anybodies guess. Is Benny Peiser busy elsewhere, writing his memoires of previous glories, now long past, perhaps.

    Whatever, an apposite article and interesting comments at:

    “And what weight lawyers, barristers etc can add is anybodies guess.”

    I would guess that they should have about the same weight as Divinity School drop outs Lionel.

    that would be Gore.

    If you’re talking about Gore – that would be a lot of weight. Literally!

    “If you’re talking about Gore – that would be a lot of weight.


    Oh real smart, hijacking my name imposter. Must be pwning you guys for you to start posting denier comments under my name.

    It just shows once again the weight of their arguments and their conception of a rational debate.

    FUD, smear, death threats, low tactics. And it’s not even for lulz. I am disappoint.

    The wonder is that any of these guys feel the need to attend such a conference. Its nice to have friends. That must be it.

    Every government is awash in red ink and other concerns and in no position to do anything of consequence about carbon emissions anyway.

    Its not like these guys are keeping the world safe for the oil companies. Its more like a chit chat club for aging bookish types with a contrarian streak.

    Good for them - but it doesnt really change anything. Policy decisions will be made in China.

    That would be a great place to play denier Bingo. Points are scored for anyone saying the following words:

    1) Scam
    2) Hoax
    3) The game is up
    4) Socialism
    5) Communism
    6) CO2 is plant food only
    7) It’s the sun
    8) There is no warming, only cooling
    9) If there is warming, it’s natural
    10) Nothing is attributable to man, it’s all natural.
    11) Al Gore
    12) LIA
    13) MWP
    14) Greenland
    15) Grapes in England
    16) It snows in places
    17) It’s been warmer before
    18) There has been more CO2 before
    19) How come Soon got a bigger cheque from EXXON than me? Where is the love? I will turn to the light side of the force I tells ya if you don’t pay up more.
    20) Raise your hand if your a denier liar like me! Everyone?! That’s great!

    It would be like going to a Benny Hinn tour. Preaching to the converted. Now where are those anonymous bots for an automated denier comment?

    your religion
    they (scientists) hid the decline (in temperatures)
    they destroyed data


    demonstrably poor comprehension skills
    problems producing sensible phrases
    poor sense of context
    poor grasp of spelling (I suffer from dyslexia - what is their excuse)
    self contradiction
    inability to see the elephants in their room
    inability to hear the canary singing
    inability to here any other canary singing

    ‘Now where are those anonymous bots for an automated denier comment?’

    They don’t like being exposed to light. They are now sulking.

    Phil M, your comment sparked my imagination on some ideas – there is a sort of code that’s used by denialists which serves the same function that memorized religious dogma serves for fundamentalists. Pre-programmed answers are necessary since there’s no interior guiding logic to cohere with, except for the denialist fear of AGW. In other words, because they’re coming from an anti-scientific point of view and MUST defeat AGW, they take any and every position and don’t have to worry about logical consistency. Denialist arguments aren’t arguing towards an explanation of the evidence, they’re merely attempting to lead people away from AGW. Counter-hypotheses aren’t really meant to be proved or disproven, which would actually defeat the purpose of why they’re made, they’re only Potemkin arguments designed for a strategic purpose. They’re supposed to fool the scientifically naive layperson, which is part of why there’s so many ad hominem attacks against the scientists themselves.

    The other thought that came to mind is how immature many denialists are. There’s a maturity level behind many of the denialists’ posts that seems more at home in Junior High school. Even the more scientifically competent denialists occasionally reveal political attitudes that could be taken straight out The Paranoid Style in American Politics. What I think of when examining these ‘performances’ is the Dolchstosslegende or any of a number of mythic beliefs. Hugh Dalziel Duncan wrote of the “killer of the dream,” a person who threatens our deeply held emotional beliefs. In other words, the theory of AGW isn’t just a theory but a threat to a worldview, which could be described as Market Fundamentalism. Belief in Market Fundamentalism is quasi-religious in nature because it’s a deep emotional attachment to a cherished myth rather than a rational position. Comments about climatologists wanting to “take over the world” are revealing in that they show both the need to vilify and the projection of a particular fear. As the logic goes, climate scientists are the “killers of the dream” who threaten the “free market,” which is a highly romanticized conception for Market Fundamentalists. Climate scientists (purportedly) not only threaten this cherished myth of free markets but they must also have diabolical motives, just as it was with the stabbed-in-the-back legend. The idea that markets could collectively fail (in the sense of bringing on GW) is unthinkable – truly. The core idea of Market Fundamentalism is that free markets are the vehicle of all that’s good. According to some, they are morality itself. In essence, climate scientist are like the Jews in WWII Germany. Only some outside force could have defeated Germany in WWI and only some outside force could have defeated the free market system. Thus, climate scientists are the scapegoats.

    One day these zionist-controlled denierificationalists and their Jewish bankers (Koch brothers) will be held to account for their crimes against humanity!

    Keep up the good work, Desmogblog!

    “One day these zionist-controlled denierificationalists and their Jewish bankers (Koch brothers)”

    What the?! What evidence do you have of this? Jewish bankers? Zion controlled?

    LOL, I agree just another nutball. Perhaps he should read up in his daily progressive mag because the Kochs are not bankers. They are oil refiners and make several other products ie toliet paper.

    “Besides, everyone knows the kikes control the banks, and the Koch brothers are kikes.”

    More imposter comments. Be original.

    Scott Denning, who also spoke at last year’s Heartland Conference, is notably absent from this list. The reason being that Denning actually acknowledges man-made global warming (see his presentation at last year’s conference). Denning is a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University, and appears to be one of a small handful of legitimate climate scientists in the crowd.

    Why then, you might ask, has the Heartland Institute not only invited Denning back this year, but also featured him prominently on the ICCC6 home page? Apparently Heartland actually scheduled a debate between Denning and Roy Spencer.

    I have a better reason. Maybe they want a REAL debate not the proclaimations of a warmists without challenge since no true believers will debate openly in a public forum.

    Romm was also invited this year also but instead he chose to ridicule instead of standing up for what he so vehemently believes.

    CAP and blunder – but Joe Romm is still invited to ICCC6

    Lakely adds it is a “myth” that only skeptics are invited to Heartland climate conferences.

    “We always invite the ‘other side,’ but few accept the challenge,” Lakely said.

    One scholar who accepted the challenge, atmospheric scientist Scott Denning of Colorado State University, made a point to mention how well he and his views were received at ICCC-4 in Chicago last year and urged his colleagues to join him. Heartland’s YouTube page has a four-minute clip of Denning’s remarks here. Some excerpts:

    “I learned a lot here. … I actually feel that it’s really too bad that more of my colleagues from the scientific community didn’t attend this, and haven’t in the past. And I hope we can remedy that in the future. … We can learn quite a bit from each other. … I think the most important thing that we have in common is the following: that we think we need public policy that is based on facts, rather than facts that are based on a policy agenda.”

    Kinda throw a wrench in your argument that Denning was only invited to provide scientific legitimacy to the conference or something doesnt it.

    ROTF LMFAO!!! LOL!!!

    Its like shooting fish in a barrel around here lol.

    It’s always “fun” to stop in once and a while to see the trolls/losers/douchebags at work.
    Love to stay and chat, but have better things to do with my time than joust with troglodyte ostriches who spout the same boring and juvenile garbage they’ve always spouted. Try getting some real arguments (science included) for a change. God.
    I must admit though, resorting to copying usernames is a new tactical low. Condolences to Phil M.
    James47, congratulations on being a giant Ahole. Enjoy shooting your fish, you condescending turd.

    “I must admit though, resorting to copying usernames is a new tactical low. Condolences to Phil M.”

    It’s standard denier behavior. Lie, cheat, deny, delay, obfuscate, misinform , denigrate, smear, death threats & now impersonations. The strength of their arguments are such that they need to resort to underhanded tactics to stave of the inevitable bust & exposure of their position. The utter humiliation that they could be dictated such falsifications because they chose to follow propaganda of fossil fuel companies instead of science.It’s pathetic.

    I think we should note that Harrison Schmitt - Ph.D. in geology - was also the only scientist and second last man on the Moon (Eugene Cernan was the very last one with Ronald Evans flying the Command module) the Apollo 17 mission.

    Schmitt will always have great respect from me for that although I think he is totally wrong when it comes to the climate change / Human Caused Global Overheating issue. He is 75 and clearly not at his intellectual peak. I find his presence at this Contrarian gabfest saddening & wish he would stay out of this debate. I think the Contrarians are exploiting him and should be ashamed.

    My source for Schmitt’s age :

    Schmitt here :

    admitting to being a “true quote, denier, unquote” speaking at a heartland inst. lecture cherry-picking data. :-(

    See also here :

    via Dr Phil Plait’s Bad Astronomy blog.

    I would have to agree with you Ben;

    There are many here that deny reality.

    And since they have no credible support for their religious views, they resort to name calling.

    It is juvenile sometimes.

    Be kind to trees…. Go for a drive.

    Bob Mendelsohn has a PhD in economics.

    Inhofe “under the weather” – was due to swimming in water with blue-green cyanobacteria. A phenomenon not seen before in the lake, but it was warmer this year than ever before, promoting the growth.

    So when Inhofe joked, “The environment struck back”, it is not as funny as he thinks.

    If it had to happen to someone – I am glad it got Inhofe. LOL

    His 13-year-old granddaughter had sense enough to stay out of the water.

    Warmer this year than ever before?????

    Clearly a religious zealot.
    No credibility left after a dumb statement like that.