A virtual debate with Jim Steele, based on his interview at Heartland Institute:
Heartland Daily Podcast | Jim Steele | January 27, 2015
Research Fellow H. Sterling Burnett (for the National Center for Policy Analysis) interviews Jim Steele, ecologist, director emeritus of the Sierra Nevada field campus of San Francisco State University
______________________________________________
Steele writes: "And we trust the scientific theory because its been fairly tested by others - the theory must out perform all alternate explanations, eliminate confounding factors plus lively debate. But, what I was finding was the scientific process was being defiled when scientists refused to debate in public. ... and any attempt to prevent that debate, in our schools, in the media, in peer reviewed science, it's only denigrating the scientific process. ...
And I think those public debates would help create real climate literacy …"
_____________________________________________________
Well then Mr. Steele, let's have our Great Global Warming Science Debate.
I will accept these responses from your Heartland Institute podcast as your opening round. I'll offer my rebuttals, evidence and questions. I agree to post your thoughtful responses unaltered. (Though it's looking like you're going to do your best to hide and ignore these critiques of your self-certain claims. Your silence will serve to expose your hypocrisy and inability to defend your statements on an even playing field.)
In this tenth installment, we've arrived at Heartland's intermission advert which I've also transcribed because it perfectly demonstrates their infantile thinking as reflected in their dedication to politicizing, misrepresenting and sewing confusion - thus materially interfering with We The People's right to honestly learn about what's going on within our atmosphere and upon our planet. This in turn, begs the question:
"How should society contend with those who knowingly
disseminate misinformation about climate science."
Lawrence Torcello
disseminate misinformation about climate science."
Lawrence Torcello
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________
_________________________________
Heartland's Burnett: "A brief timeout on behalf of the Heartlander Digital Magazine.
The Heartlander Digital Magazine is a unique product among right leaning think-tanks, published by the Heartland Institute this daily news site is overseen by managing editors for each of its six sections and produced by a team of writers who cover current events from a Free Market Perspective updated with fresh stories. Every day the Heartlander Magazine provides readers with vital counter-spin to the mainstream medias take on the important domestic policy issues of the day.
... Get fully informed, get the Free Market angle to today's news, visit us."
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"vital counter-spin", "Free Market angle" ?
What about learning from the information at hand ? ?
This dedication to playing games and sanctioning spin over substance and striving to understand the full scope of available information is appalling.
What about learning from the information at hand ? ?
This dedication to playing games and sanctioning spin over substance and striving to understand the full scope of available information is appalling.
Not a word about assessing and learning from authoritative scientific information.
Their mission statement reveals a similar level of self absorption and acceptance of self-delusion for power political purposes which in turn forces them into a dogmatic rejection of listening to or learning from the full scope of information at hand:
https://www.heartland.org/mission
The mission of The Heartland Institute is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Such solutions include parental choice in education, choice and personal responsibility in health care, market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of public services, and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do a better job than government bureaucracies.
__________________________________
No interest in our planet's health.
Not a word about learning about how our planet and it's life sustaining climate operates.
Not a word about nurturing the heath of our global life support system.
It's all about self-interest and getting their own way.
To such thinkers, the Earth is little more than a commodity to consume as fast as possible.
Great for today's party but a nightmare for our children's future lives.
__________________________________
I'll close this installment with a few excerpts and links to various articles that look into this Heartland Institution.
Leaked Heartland Institute documents pull back curtain on climate scepticism
Leo Hickman | February 15, 2012
~ ~ ~
An Open Letter (by climate scientists) to the Heartland Institute
(in response to news of HI's document leaks) | February 2012
~ ~ ~
The Alternative Reality of the Heartland Institute’s “NIPCC” Report
Steve Newton | October 28, 2013
~ ~ ~
Good news: Media utterly ignored Heartland Institute/NIPCC at National Press Club
Mike Stark | April 11, 2014
~ ~ ~
Climate-denying researcher slams critics with help from climate-denying Heartland Institute
Leaked Heartland Institute documents pull back curtain on climate scepticism
Leo Hickman | February 15, 2012
"… The Heartland Institute, an influential rightwing thinktank based in Chicago, which has long pushed misinformation about climate change, is currently having its own Wizard of Oz moment following the leaking of internal documents which reveal the true extent of its funding and efforts to cast doubt on climate science. ..."
...
"Most eyes will probably fall first on the "Anonymous Donor" who, the documents show, personally funded Heartland's "climate change projects" to the tune of $8,602,267 between 2007 and 2011. The largest donation came in 2008 when "he" donated $3.3m – the same year that Heartland began its annual climate change conferences which have attracted just about every prominent climate sceptic since. This mystery donor has apparently pledged a further $1m for "climate change projects" during 2012. ..."
...
"Perhaps more unsettling is the document's revelation that Heartland is actively developing a "Global Warming Curriculum for K-12 Classrooms":
Principals and teachers are heavily biased toward the alarmist perspective. To counter this we are considering launching an effort to develop alternative materials for K-12 classrooms. We are pursuing a proposal from Dr. David Wojick to produce a global warming curriculum for K-12 schools. Dr. Wojick is a consultant with the Office of Scientific and Technical Information at the U.S. Department of Energy in the area of information and communication science. His effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain - two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science. We tentatively plan to pay Dr. Wojick $100,000 for 20 modules in 2012, with funding pledged by the Anonymous Donor.
The co-ordinated effort to undermine the teaching of climate science in US classrooms has been noted before, but this still takes the breath away. ..."
...
"But the dropping of jaws doesn't end there. Next up, we learn that Heartland paid a team of writers $388,000 in 2011 to write a series of reports "to undermine the official United Nation's IPCC reports". Not critique, challenge, or analyse the IPCC's reports, but "to undermine" them. The agenda and pre-ordained outcome is clear and there for all to see.
Then we move on to the direct funding by Heartland – and its "anonymous donor" – of various climate sceptic scientists:
Our current budget includes funding for high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist AGW message. At the moment, this funding goes primarily to Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), Fred Singer ($5,000 per month, plus expenses), Robert Carter ($1,667 per month), and a number of other individuals, but we will consider expanding it, if funding can be found. ..."
There's much more, see for yourself :
__________________________________
An Open Letter to the Heartland Institute
As scientists who have had their emails stolen, posted online and grossly misrepresented, we can appreciate the difficulties the Heartland Institute is currently experiencing following the online posting of the organization’s internal documents earlier this week.
However, we are greatly disappointed by their content, which indicates the organization is continuing its campaign to discredit mainstream climate science and to undermine the teaching of well-established climate science in the classroom.
We know what it feels like to have private information stolen and posted online via illegal hacking. It happened to climate researchers in 2009 and again in 2011. Personal emails were culled through and taken out of context before they were posted online. In 2009, the Heartland Institute was among the groups that spread false allegations about what these stolen emails said.
Despite multiple independent investigations, which demonstrated that allegations against scientists were false, the Heartland Institute continued to attack scientists based on the stolen emails. When more stolen emails were posted online in 2011, the Heartland Institute again pointed to their release and spread false claims about scientists.
So although we can agree that stealing documents and posting them online is not an acceptable practice, we would be remiss if we did not point out that the Heartland Institute has had no qualms about utilizing and distorting emails stolen from scientists.
We hope the Heartland Institute will heed its own advice to “think about what has happened” and recognize how its attacks on science and scientists have helped poison the debate over climate change policy. The Heartland Institute has chosen to undermine public understanding of basic scientific facts and personally attack climate researchers rather than engage in a civil debate about climate change policy options.
These are the facts: Climate change is occurring. Human activity is the primary cause of recent climate change. Climate change is already disrupting many human and natural systems. The more heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions that go into the atmosphere, the more severe those disruptions will become. Major scientific assessments from the Royal Society, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, United States Global Change Research Program and other authoritative sources agree on these points.
What businesses, policymakers, advocacy groups and citizens choose to do in response to those facts should be informed by the science. But those decisions are also necessarily informed by economic, ethical, ideological, and other considerations. While the Heartland Institute is entitled to its views on policy, we object to its practice of spreading misinformation about climate research and personally attacking climate scientists to further its goals.
We hope the Heartland Institute will begin to play a more constructive role in the policy debate. Refraining from misleading attacks on climate science and climate researchers would be a welcome first step toward having an honest, fact-based debate about the policy responses to climate change.
Ray Bradley, PhD, Director of the Climate System Research Center, University of Massachusetts
David Karoly, PhD, ARC Federation Fellow and Professor, University of Melbourne, Australia
Michael Mann, PhD, Director, Earth System Science Center, Pennsylvania State University
Jonathan Overpeck, PhD, Professor of Geosciences and Atmospheric Sciences, Univ. of Arizona
Ben Santer, PhD, Research Scientist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Gavin Schmidt, PhD, Climate Scientist, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Kevin Trenberth, ScD, Distinguished Senior Scientist, Climate Analysis Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research
__________________________________
The Alternative Reality of the Heartland Institute’s “NIPCC” Report
Steve Newton | October 28, 2013
This Heartland NIPCC report presents an alternative reality for climate science. Just as Conservapedia offers its readers comforting information reinforcing predetermined views, the NIPCC gives self-styled climate “skeptics” a fig leaf for their rejection of standard science. While the IPCC analyzes the issue using relevant peer-reviewed science, the NIPCC offers the tiniest slice of information possible, cherry-picked factoids out of context and without regard to the overall picture.
The danger in the Heartland Institute's mass mailing is that some K-12 teachers may mistake what they see for real science. K-12 teachers teach a wide range of subjects in which they have variable experience and expertise. As climate science is incorporated into courses, many teachers find themselves looking for information to use in class. And here, delivered right to their mailbox, is Heartland's report dressed up to look like a real scientific assessment from that group...what was the name, again? NIPCC? IPCC? Are they different?
Here’s how teachers can tell the difference:
The NIPCC’s “Summary for Policymakers” report describes itself as:
...wholly independent of political pressures and influences and therefore is not predisposed to produce politically motivated conclusions or policy recommendations.
What kind of scientific report starts off mentioning politics twice in one sentence? Would a peer-reviewed paper on atmospheric dynamics or ocean chemistry begin by outlining the political affiliations of the researchers?
The summary goes on to present what it calls the “Green and Red Team” approach. This is meant to mimic some sort of business practice that assigns workers into opposing groups, as in a court of law, with a prosecution and a defense team. But this artificial adversarial approach is not the way science works and sets up a false choice. Even if the “Red Team” is wrong, that does not mean the “Green Team” is right.
Moreover, this artificial setup allows Heartland to claim that its “Red Team” stands on equal footing to the “Green Team” of the IPCC; this is far from the case. Heartland’s report was crafted by a handful of well-known climate deniers, who were paid for their efforts. (Heartland apparently spent over $1.6 million on this NIPCC project.) The latest IPCC report, by contrast, was drafted by 259 scientists from 39 countries, supported by over 600 reviewers and contributors. IPCC scientists are unpaid and volunteer their expertise.
The “Summary of NIPCC’s Findings” should make confusing reading for teachers trying to understand more about climate. ..."
__________________________________
Good news: Media utterly ignored Heartland Institute/NIPCC at National Press Club
Mike Stark | April 11, 2014
Our story begins in 1998 with this memo, leaked to the New York Times from the American Petroleum Institute:
Global Climate Science Communications Action Plan
Victory Will Be Achieved When
- Average citizens “understand” (recognize) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the “conventional wisdom”
- Media “understands” (recognizes) uncertainties in climate science
- Media coverage reflects balance on climate science and recognition of the validity of viewpoints that challenge the current “conventional wisdom”
- […]
Strategies and Tactics
I. National Media Relations Program:
Develop and implement a national media relations program to inform the media about uncertainties in climate science; to generate national, regional and local media coverage on the scientific uncertainties, and thereby educate and inform the public, stimulating them to raise questions with policy makers. […]
Tactics: These tactics will be undertaken between now and the next climate meeting in Buenos Aires/Argentina, in November 1998, and will be continued thereafter, as appropriate. Activities will be launched as soon as the plan is approved, funding obtained, and the necessary resources (e.g., public relations counsel) arranged and deployed. In all cases, tactical implementation will be fully integrated with other elements of this action plan, most especially Strategy II (National Climate Science Data Center).
Identify, recruit and train a team of five independent scientists to participate in media outreach. These will be individuals who do not have a long history of visibility and/or participation in the climate change debate. Rather, this team will consist of new faces who will add their voices to those recognized scientists who already are vocal.
- Develop a global climate science information kit for media including peer-reviewed papers that undercut the “conventional wisdom”on climate science. This kit also will include understandable communications, including simple fact sheets that present scientific uncertainties in language that the media and public can understand.
- Conduct briefings by media-trained scientists for science writers in the top 20 media markets, using the information kits. Distribute the information kits to daily newspapers nationwide with offer of scientists to brief reporters at each paper. Develop, disseminate radio news releases featuring scientists nationwide, and offer scientists to appear on radio talk shows across the country.
- Produce, distribute a steady stream of climate science information via facsimile and e-mail to science writers around the country.
- Produce, distribute via syndicate and directly to newspapers nationwide a steady stream of op-ed columns and letters to the editor authored by scientists.
- Convince one of the major news national TV journalists (e.g., John Stossel ) to produce a report examining the scientific underpinnings of the Kyoto treaty.
- Organize, promote and conduct through grassroots organizations a series of campus/community workshops/debates on climate science in 10 most important states during the period mid-August through October, 1998.
- Consider advertising the scientific uncertainties in select markets to support national, regional and local (e.g., workshops / debates), as appropriate. […]
II. Global Climate Science Information Source:
Develop and implement a program to inject credible science and scientific accountability into the global climate debate, thereby raising questions about and undercutting the “prevailing scientific wisdom.”
The strategy will have the added benefit of providing a platform for credible, constructive criticism of the opposition’s position on the science. […]
The strategy will have the added benefit of providing a platform for credible, constructive criticism of the opposition’s position on the science. […]
- The GCSDC will become a one-stop resource on climate science for members of Congress, the media, industry and all others concerned. It will be in constant contact with the best climate scientists and ensure that their findings and views receive appropriate attention. It will provide them with the logistical and moral support they have been lacking. In short, it will be a sound scientific alternative to the IPCC. […]
Here again, there's much more, see for yourself : http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2012/feb/15/leaked-heartland-institute-documents-climate-scepticism
___________________________________________
The Alternative Reality of the Heartland Institute’s “NIPCC” Report
Steve Newton | October 28, 2013
This Heartland NIPCC report presents an alternative reality for climate science. Just as Conservapedia offers its readers comforting information reinforcing predetermined views, the NIPCC gives self-styled climate “skeptics” a fig leaf for their rejection of standard science. While the IPCC analyzes the issue using relevant peer-reviewed science, the NIPCC offers the tiniest slice of information possible, cherry-picked factoids out of context and without regard to the overall picture.
The danger in the Heartland Institute's mass mailing is that some K-12 teachers may mistake what they see for real science. K-12 teachers teach a wide range of subjects in which they have variable experience and expertise. As climate science is incorporated into courses, many teachers find themselves looking for information to use in class. And here, delivered right to their mailbox, is Heartland's report dressed up to look like a real scientific assessment from that group...what was the name, again? NIPCC? IPCC? Are they different?
Here’s how teachers can tell the difference:
The NIPCC’s “Summary for Policymakers” report describes itself as:
...wholly independent of political pressures and influences and therefore is not predisposed to produce politically motivated conclusions or policy recommendations.
What kind of scientific report starts off mentioning politics twice in one sentence? Would a peer-reviewed paper on atmospheric dynamics or ocean chemistry begin by outlining the political affiliations of the researchers?
The summary goes on to present what it calls the “Green and Red Team” approach. This is meant to mimic some sort of business practice that assigns workers into opposing groups, as in a court of law, with a prosecution and a defense team. But this artificial adversarial approach is not the way science works and sets up a false choice. Even if the “Red Team” is wrong, that does not mean the “Green Team” is right.
Moreover, this artificial setup allows Heartland to claim that its “Red Team” stands on equal footing to the “Green Team” of the IPCC; this is far from the case. Heartland’s report was crafted by a handful of well-known climate deniers, who were paid for their efforts. (Heartland apparently spent over $1.6 million on this NIPCC project.)
The latest IPCC report, by contrast, was drafted by 259 scientists from 39 countries, supported by over 600 reviewers and contributors. IPCC scientists are unpaid and volunteer their expertise.
The latest IPCC report, by contrast, was drafted by 259 scientists from 39 countries, supported by over 600 reviewers and contributors. IPCC scientists are unpaid and volunteer their expertise.
The “Summary of NIPCC’s Findings” should make confusing reading for teachers trying to understand more about climate. ..."
__________________________________
Climate-denying researcher slams critics with help from climate-denying Heartland Institute
Lindsey Abrams | March 03, 2015But the real scandal is that Soon, who is not a climate scientist and who has aligned himself with the decidedly unscientific Heartland Institute, is continuing to stand by the integrity of his work, which deviates sharply from the vast majority of climate science. If he is, as he claimed, “willing to debate the substance of my research and competing views of climate change with anyone, anytime, anywhere,” he might want to start with the climate scientists listed in this exhaustive round-up of all the ways in which the substance of his research has been debated and discredited on its scientific merit alone. ...
No comments:
Post a Comment