Heartland Institute documents reveal strategy of attacks against climate science
Documents illegally leaked from the Heartland Institute, one of the most active groups engaged in attacking the science of climate change, provide an unprecedented look into how these groups operate. The story was broken Tuesday by DeSmogBlog, a website dedicated to exposing false claims about climate change science. The documents reveal that donors to Heartland included oil billionaire Charles Koch, and Heartland has spent several million dollars over the past five years to undermine climate science. Tens of thousands of dollars are slated to go this year to well-known climate contrarians S.Fred Singer, Craig Idso, and Anthony Watts of the Watts Up With That? website. Naturally, the leaked documents have lit up the blogosphere, but none of the revelations are particularly surprising. The U.S. has a very successful and well-funded climate change denial industry, primarily funded by fossil fuel companies, that has spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the past few decades on a PR campaign against climate change science. I made a lengthy post on the subject in 2009 called, The Manufactured Doubt industry and the hacked email controversy. I won't say more here, but getenergysmartnow.com has compiled a long list of blogs that have interesting posts on the Heartland Institute affair for those interested in following this story.
Eight books challenging the Manufactured Doubt industry
Important scientific findings should always be challenged with the goal of finding flaws and improving our scientific understanding. But there's nothing a scientist hates more than to see good science attacked and the reputations of good scientists smeared in name of protecting corporate profits or ideology. A number of scientists have fought back against the recent unfounded assaults on climate change science by publishing books calling attention to the Manufactured Doubt industry's tactics and goals. Anyone priding themselves on being a open-minded skeptic of human-caused global warming should challenge their skepticism by reading one of these works. I thought so highly of Unscientific America, Merchants of Doubt, and Climate Coverup, that I donated 50 copies of these books to undergraduates at the University of Michigan last year. Here's a short synopsis of eight books published in the past three years defending climate change science against the attacks of the Manufactured Doubt industry:
Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming, by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway. If you're going to read one book on the attacks on climate science, this should probably be the one--Dr. Oreskes, a history professor at UC San Diego, was voted climate change communicator of the year in 2011. A review of Merchants of Doubt and a video of her defending her book against skeptics is at climateprogress.org, my favorite website for staying current on the politics of climate change. From the review: "Make the journey with them, and you’ll see renowned scientists abandon science, you’ll see environmentalism equated with communism, and you’ll discover the connection between the Cold War and climate denial. And for the most part, you’ll be entertained along the way."
Climate Cover-up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming, by desmogblog.com co-founders James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore. The main author, James Hoggan, owns a Canadian public relations firm, and is intimately familiar with how public relations campaigns work. It's another fascinating and very readable book.
Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future, by science writer Chris Mooney. He writes a blog focusing on science communication called the intersection. This is a fantastic book, and should be required reading for all college science majors.
Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand, by Haydn Washington and John Cook. John Cook writes for one of my favorite climate science blogs, skepticalscience.com, which focuses on debunking false skeptic claims about climate science. The book does a great job debunking all the classic climate change denial arguments.
Doubt is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health, by George Washington University epidemiologist David Michaels, who now heads the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA). This meticulously-researched book has just one chapter on climate change, and focuses more on tobacco and hazardous chemicals. About the the tobacco industry's Manufactured Doubt campaigns, Michaels wrote: "the industry understood that the public is in no position to distinguish good science from bad. Create doubt, uncertainty, and confusion. Throw mud at the anti-smoking research under the assumption that some of it is bound to stick. And buy time, lots of it, in the bargain". The title of Michaels' book comes from a 1969 memo from a tobacco company executive: "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy".
The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines, by climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann. Dr. Mann is the originator of the much-debated "hockey stick" graph of global temperatures over the past 1,000 years, which looks like a hockey stick due to the sharp increase in temperatures in recent decades. This book just came out last week, and I hope to write a review on it this spring. Dr. Mann is one of the main contributors to my favorite web site for staying current on climate change research, realclimate.org. John Cook of skepticalscience.com wrote a review, calling it "an eye-opening account of the lengths the opponents of climate science will go to in their campaign to slander climate scientists and distract the public from the realities of human caused global warming."
Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America by Shawn Lawrence Otto. I haven't had a chance to read this one yet, but it looks interesting. A review by Katherine O’Konski of Climate Science Watch called the book "a fascinating look at the status of science in American society."
The Inquisition of Climate Science, by Dr. James Lawrence Powell, a geochemist with a distinguished career as a college teacher, college president, museum director, and author of books on earth science for general audiences. I haven't read it, but John Cook of skepticalscience.com wrote a review, calling it "a must-read for anyone who wishes to understand the full scope of the denial industry and their modern day persecution of climate science."
Have a great weekend, everyone! I'll be taking a few vacation days next week, and wunderground meteorologist Angela Fritz will probably be doing most of the blogging for me during the coming week.
Jeff Masters
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 — Blog Index
There certainly is a difference if one group is shown to be intentionally telling lies to distort the facts and confuse people.
Being a skeptic because you aren't yet convinced by the evidence, or have a legitimate alternate theory is one thing.
It is quite different to intentionally falsify knowledge, or confuse people about the reliability and interpretation of data due to corrupt political or financial motivations.
Lately, it comes as little surprise to me that the ultra conservatives, on which ever spectrum you want to measure them as such, are the ones behind the lies and misinformation.
If the Coal companies have a complaint against solar and wind companies taking advantage of government incentives, why don't they invest in solar and wind and compete?
The answer is a bit more complicated than that. With a few exceptions, the fossil fuel industry simply does NOT want individuals, small businesses, or even corporations to be able to make cheap energy of their own, by any means.
They have an energy monopoly, and want it to stay that way, and from their point of view, the best way to continue to enslave everyone else is to stick with coal and oil, since the sheep must always come back for more.
If we had cheap energy in which much of our energy came from private wind and solar units on our houses and businesses, which last for several decades or even a generation, and pay for themselves several times over in their expected life times, then the energy monopolies would go bankrupt.
Like any good crime lord, their whole life motivation is to "protect their turf" by undermining any advancement in energy technology and infrastructure.
Sooo...you'd rather be lied to all the time than to know the truth?
If yours is the attitude of our civilization, then Heaven help us.
Get over it. Climate Change is the most important issue of the 21st century and Dr. Masters is of the clear (and correct) view that there are massive forces positioned against actually doing anything about it.
He is highlighting the fact that one of the major mouthpieces for the denial industry has been put under the spotlight. And no, nothing has been 'proven to be falsified'... only the Institute says one document, that it particularly doesn't like is and frankly I don't put much stock in that and it doesn't matter anyway since the verified financial records show clearly both the agenda and the pay offs.
So thank you, Dr. Masters, for keeping this on the frontburner and exposing all of your viewers to a continuing stream of facts on Hurricanes, on Severe Weather, and on Climate Change and Global Warming.
And by the way, for those who say he should be focusing on the danger of loss of life Severe Weather is posing to parts of the US today please do know that the denial industry is in fact enabling mass deaths and suffering to future generations due to rising sea levels, mass migrations, droughts and floods, and *more* severe weather.
Gee, what's new in that world?
LoL
Ack!!!! : )
Let's get something straight. The Heartland Institute is not questioning the science of global warming. Period.
The Heartland Institute is attempting to create doubt about the science. They are trying to kill the message that we are doing significant harm to our planet and putting the future of our children at risk. And it's now clear that they are doing so because they are getting paid by fossil fuel industry interests.
We are screwing ourselves and those who follow us. A few people make large amounts of money from oil and coal and they do not want to see their business disrupted, even if it destroys the planet. They are no different from those who cook meth, knowing that it will destroy lives but putting personal gain before the welfare of others.
We've seen this before when the tobacco industry paid people, even doctors, to tell us that smoking wouldn't damage our health.
BTW, you don't know what "theory" means in scientific usage.
Kinda seems to be similar here along the Gulf Coast near New Orleans, as well. Different from what I am used to in the midwest.
Senator Inhofe to U.N. Climate Change Conference: Nobody Cares
And they wonder why the US is slipping in the wrong direction.
I give thee, "BS on Earth", reincarnated.
Someone might want to notify the Sen. as to the US Military plan's to cope with "Climate Change"
DoD PDF 2011
I.1.A DoD Reliance on Energy
The U.S. military's reliance on energy and fossil fuels in particular poses four broad security
challenges. First is the growing operational risk to forces deployed around the globe. Attacks on fuel
convoys and fixed energy supplies in Afghanistan, Iraq, and surrounding countries already demonstrate
the vulnerability of our current supply networks, and future adversaries likely will possess additional
capabilities to target logistics and fuel infrastructure with even greater lethality. A second challenge is
the security of petroleum distribution networks. Most petroleum products are transported by sea, and
much of this trade passes through vulnerable chokepoints such as the Strait of Hormuz and the Straits of
Malacca. Piracy, political instability and military action can threaten the free flow of energy through
these vital channels. Additionally, the trend over the last thirty years to migrate refinement of petroleum
products to fixed locations outside our country's borders increases vulnerability of usable petroleum
products to physical attack, political unrest and commercial mismanagement at governmentally
controlled facilities. Energy supply vulnerability is, therefore, a strategic as well as a tactical threat. A
third challenge is the price volatility of a valuable commodity such as petroleum. Political instability and
tightening global oil supplies within some oil-producing nations create significant price volatility, raising
our costs and making budget and acquisition decisions more difficult. The effects of these costs are
significant, both in terms of the billions of dollars the nation sends overseas and in the geostrategic
consequences. The challenge will increase as the growing demand for energy particularly in Asia
places pressure on projected oil production and refining capacity.
Hey, if we can measure it, we can maybe "Control it".
Wel, dat approach hasnt worked out well atall'.
That's right. Because the climategate emails were nothing but a million word dump where the denialists blogs had a field day taking comments out of context and out of meaning and slandering scientists who were, in the end, found by multiple reviews to be completely innocent of any wrongdoing.
This current scandal is a very specific set of documents detailing very specifically programs and and people the HI support and for what purposes.
In short, there is no denying the denial industry is what it is. The financial reports are there for all to see.
If you don't see the difference between the two then you simply have not allowed yourself to look.
Why do you suppose that is?
I enjoy rainy days
I enjoy foggy days
I enjoy snowy and icee days
I enjoy severe weather days
I always get excited about these...
I HATE SUNNY DAYS
As far as the GW issues, I staying out of that one for the time being ............. :)
It is true that each area within a 25 mile radius has a 70% chance of not seeing severe weather, however if we take lets say 3 points within different radii, then you have to raise the 70% of the power of 3 so in this case it would be a 34% chance of severe weather not happening at all, or a 64% chance of severe weather happening at one of the 3 25 mile radii. Hope that helps :) Just raise the percentage you have to the power of how many different points you have.
With "Climategate" deniers took parts of emails out of context and attempted to make it look like climate scientists had said and done things which they had not.
I'm withholding my judgement on whether these leaked documents are accurate. There's some chance that they are faked, but it will take a little time to establish their accuracy.
If these documents are accepted as accurate then we can judge for ourselves what has been going on within the Heartland Institute, if they have been distorting for payment. If they are operating as a public relations firm for the fossil fuel industry.
Unlike the earlier set of emails which were not released for all to read these documents are on line right now. There is no attempt to pull bits out of context and create a fiction.
Just FYI:
The Heartland Institute has indicated that the Financial reports were 'stolen' and are thus presumed to be legitimate. They are all you really need to read.
The only document that is being claimed to be 'faked' is the "memo" on strategy and that's only because it appears to have been scanned rather than be a printout of an actual document.
No matter. Even without that document, the financial documents speak for themselves and contains more than enough 'strategy' details to conclude rightly that the Institute is hell bent on manufacturing doubt and even taking the creationist route and injecting that doubt into the classroom.
DeSmogBlog said it best:
"In the meantime, how about everybody take a moment to look away from the shiny penny in the magician's left hand and concentrate instead on the 100 pages of damning evidence falling out of his right sleeve."
They are going to have an additional Webinar breifing this afternoon in a few hours (guess they are looking at the most recent model runs).
Tommorow would be a good day for all folks along the Gulf Coast to keep a NOAA Radio handy and keep a close eye on the weather.
Link
It's a couple things that distinguishes it.
It's a measure of the bias in probability above equal chance, not the probability itself.
Second, it applies to an area within 50 miles, I think, of the town, station, or region for which the forecast is given. It varies depending on the type of weather being forecast.
Although I'm not sure how those numbers are calculated.
Example:
Clearly, in this graphic "50%" does not mean there's a 50/50 chance, since the neutral gray actually represents equal chance.
It also clearly doesn't represent a linear multiple of average temperature in any scale, as that would represent 150 degree weather, which is silly.
The colored graphics represent the likelihood of being biased above an even chance.
Now for example, when the Weather Channel puts out their new "Torcon" index, each point represents a 10% chance of having at least one tornado within a 50 mile radius of the forecast location.
That's just an example of how "percent" has a different meaning depending on the application and context.
Don't quote me on it but not looking at the moment like Tampa Bay will get any severe weather tommorow based on the current tragectory. Anything could happen though if the low really deepens and dips a little further South tommorow on the way to the Eastern Seaboard........ Keep tuned to your local NWS tommorow.
It is simple probability, its like saying roll 6 dice what is the probability the number 1 doesnt appear.
.DISCUSSION...
THINGS NOT GOING TO PLAN THIS MORNING. LAST NIGHT`S S/WV WENT WELL
NORTH OF THE REGION TAKING MOST OF THE RAIN WELL NORTH OF THE REGION.
850 MB MOISTURE IS STILL LACKING AND WATER VAPOR IMAGERY DOES NOT
SHOW ANY S/WV`S MOVING TOWARD THE REGION. OTHER THAN WEAK WARM AIR
ADVECTION...CAN`T REALLY FIND ANY OTHER LIFTING MECHANISM SO HAVE
DECIDED TO LOWER POPS AND DELAY THE FLOOD WATCH TO 00Z. THE 12Z
NAM12 IS SHIFTING MOST OF THE PRECIP NORTH OF THE REGION OVERNIGHT
AND SATURDAY. AFTER LAST NIGHTS FORECAST...CONFIDENCE IS SOMEWHAT
LACKING.
We are 15 trillion in debt from mostly irresponsible government spending, we need to cut all the crap and invest in science advancement of alternative energy and improved efficiency(green/less waste).
Natural gas isn't a long term and permanent solution, but its a heck of a lot better than oil on the environment, plus we would no longer be dependent on other countries. Meanwhile we can put a lot of help for scientists to develop more powerful and longer road life electric vehicles.
But why is there such opposition? HMMMM could it be greed and deceitfulness? Nahhhhh..... LOL
During the course of that show, first, I loved the Art associated with it.
It was Beautiful at times, and stark reality another.
Secondly, it came to me that here we have a show,describing the future as it may be..and the personal impact it has on the individual.
Also the attaching of persona from this forum to characters in the Story, were also intriguing to say the least.
: )
Earth 2100 Hosted by ABC journalist Bob Woodruff, the two-hour special explored what a worst-case future might look like if humans do not take action on current or impending problems that could threaten civilization. The problems addressed in the program include climate change, overpopulation, and misuse of energy resources.
+10123 x 10^28
Plan on indoor activities tomorrow rather than going to stake out a place on the Super Krewe's route.
Lotsa updates on nola.comfor the events thru Phat Tuesday coming.
Rain is gone Saturday evening and looks good thru the Mardi Gras day Tues as well.
Well, it would certainly make denying the obvious easier if you can't see it. :P
It can't be simple probability, because that wouldn't make sense.
the neutral gray is defined as equal chance.
So the 3rd shade of orange, being 50%, cannot represent simple probability, since 50% in simple probability would still be equal chance...
The probability 1 does not appear on 1D6 is 5/6, neglecting air resistance and other biases in the human's tossing method.
But ultimately, all numbers on the die have equal chance of appearing.
Now, if you put a bottom cap of 2 on a 1d6, then 1 has no chance of appearing, and 2 has a 2/6 chance of appearing, while the other values maintain a 1/6 chance.
Even if you had a bottom cap of 3 on 1D6, you'd still have a 50/50 chance of rolling above average or below average as compared to an unbiased die, since average is actually 3.5...
Now if you had a plus 1 modifier to all rolls, then you have a 4/6 chance of rolling above average vs an unbiased die roll, because 3 would become 4, which is more than 3.5.
But 4/6 is only 16.7% above equal chance that would be on an unbiased die roll.
This is why I must dispute the claim that it's simple probability.
If it was simple probability, the first colored ring should start at some number like 55 or 60%, since grey is already equal chance...
I do not see how that was hypocritical/pot and kettle-like. Also, keep in mind if any of the climate model predictions came true, many people would be dying as a result of these changes as well.
hey what do you expect, the model was made in Canada! ;)
LOL jk
When they are forecasting a thunderstorm or a tornado, THAT is simple probability.
But the long term forecast for temperature departures from normal, or precip departures simply doesn't make sense as a representation of "simple probability".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detai lpage&v=NfWGjPQ-iVM
A 30 percent risk means there is a 30 percent chance of severe weather within 25 miles of a point.
In other words 30 percent of the risk area is within 25 miles of a severe weather event, a pretty large area.
Looking More Closely,
If the probability of severe weather within 25 miles of a point(625pi square miles) is 30%,there is a 70% chance severe weather does not occur within 25 miles of that point.
Within 50 squaremiles of a point(2500pi square miles, 4 times our original area), there is approximately a .7^4 chance of no severe weather occuring in this area which equals 0.2401, meaning we are now up to a 75.99% chance of severe weather occuring in our new enlarged area which is about 8000 square miles.
The state of GA, for example is 60,000 square miles, so there will probably be quite a few, but not an overly excessive, amount of severe weather in a 30% risk area covering GA.
That is why 30% is still included in a slight risk, but still is a very dangerous situation
I'm sure my probability math is horrible( I dont think dividing our 2500 square miles into 4 sections is proper mathematics), but I hope that helps anyway.
Sorry about all the math, can't help it i'm still in school:)
As a side note it is difficult to determine these probabilities since the SPC does not know exactly where severe weather occured since it can only see radar and damage reports. We may never know what the probabilties should be, but the SPC makes educated guesses based on the state of the atmosphere before/during a severe weather event.
Now they have product verification where they overlay the reports they received on top of the convective outlooks they issued for the event in question. Sometimes, it appears they were right, other times, not so much.
Your very observant and that will be a plus for you and your family n the Future.
Man has changed things on Earth in my life drastically in 52 years.
But having a daughter who turned 21 Valentines day Weds, well, and a son 19.
I take the advice of my Father.
Leave a better world for your kids and grandkids.
Viewing: 101 - 151
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 — Blog Index