Heartland has Long History of Blowing Smoke

Thu, 2012-03-08 09:57Richard Littlemore
Richard Littlemore's picture

Heartland has Long History of Blowing Smoke

One of the most bizarre reactions to the St. Valetines Day Striptease, in which the Heartland Institute was tempted by a mild-mnannered scientist to completely expose itself - its strategies, funders and plans for the new year - is the complaint by “neutral” observers like Judith Curry that people were somehow picking on Heartland unfairly.

Even aside from the reams of evidence in the Striptease documents, Heartland has a long history of mining money from questionable corporate funders and then representing itself as a (taxpayer subsidized) “think tank” - as if its some kind of educational organization contributing to the public conversation about difficult issues.

The document - and Heartland's own self-celebrating promotional efforts - make absolutely clear that Heartland is a lobbyist, and given that its favourite client through the years has been the tobacco industry, we know for sure it's a lobbyist with no particular standards.

Here, as evidence toward that point, is a wonderful wrap, by the blog Planet 3.0/Beyond Sustainability of Heartland's history of blowing smoke on behalf of funders Philip Morris, et al.

Comments

And in other news.......

Gleick grants in question at House budget hearing on EPA.

http://junkscience.com/2012/03/06/junkscience-prompts-gleick-question-at-house-budget-hearing-on-epa/

"Rep. Dana Rohrabacher wants to know whether EPA can block Peter Gleick from ever receiving agency grants after he swiped [stole] documents from The Heartland Institute."

This thing just won't go away!

'If' guilty he cannot work with the government.

 

But its really kind of a whatever statement.  I assumed that up front, and it won't affect his career.

Thank you for a scandal tag that doesn't have the syllable "gate" in it!

 

 

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher

 He's the guy who think trees are causing global warming.

 

 

 

 

 

The alternate universe of  GOP climate science
 

Have fun!

 

GOP congressman Rohrbacher suggests trees cause global warming

Speaker of the House Boehner says CO2 emissions nothing to worry about because humans breathe CO2 in and out.
Excuse me speaker, ever hear of the greenhouse effect?

Michelle Bachman says there have been no scientific studies showing CO2 is harmful.
I guess she missed the 10,000 (up to about 2006) published research papers that show that CO2 causes global warming. There are thousands more research papers since then.  Hundreds of papers are published every week relating to climate

Rick Perry likens himself and other deniers to Galileo.
Sorry Rick, but Galileo was correct and had the evidence.
You are wrong and have no evidence, while ignoring the mountain of evidence for AGW.  (AGW = anthropogenic global warming - man made)
Perry and the rest are more like the religious authorities who persecued Galileo.

GOP Rep Fred Upton says there can be no global warming because God won't allow it to happen.

And of course  Sen Inhofe says its all a big hoax.
Sure Senator, the entire world scientific community is just trying to get more grant money.

And of course, Sen Inhofe (R Oklahoma) liked to invite science fiction writer Michael Crichton as an "expert witness" on climate change.
Apparently all you have to do is a write nonsense novel to be invited as an expert.

 

 

 

 

More fun at the GOP Science Fun House

 

Republican Joe Barton introduced Monckton to a U.S. House committee hearing as an expert witness on climate change

 Barton (R-TX) describes Christopher Monckton

"as being generally regarded as one of the most knowledgeable, if not the most knowledgeable, experts on the skeptic side."  

Monckton is NOT A SCIENTIST

Viscount Monckton as he likes to be called,   who the GOP loves to call as an expert witness on climate change, is not a scientist of any kind. His only higher education is in journalism. Monckton is a complete charlatan, who has been completely and devastatingly debunked on many occasions by real scientists. The GOP has at least twice had him as an expert witness on climate change, at important House Committee hearings.
 
Monckton had been told twice by the British House of Lords, to stop claiming he is a member. Yet he intoduces himself to U.S. congress  as an emissary  from Parliament.  He embellishes all his fake temperature charts, etc and other publications, with a very close facsimlie of the seal of Parliament, the crowned porcullis.  They have told him to stop using their seal. 
 He claims to have discovered cures for HIV, the flu, the cold, Graves disease. He claims to have been a science advisor to Margaret Thatcher. He never was.
 
He is looney beyond belief, IMO.  And he is well paid by the Koch brothers and others, to spread confusion.  Monckton is a showman, very persuasive in front of an audience and knows how to sound scientific, while spreading complete nonsense.
 
Barton and Inhofe get more oil money than any other legislators, in the House and Senate, respectively.
 

 

 

 

 

 

Wait;  there's more fun in the loopy world of GOP climate science.

 

 

Minnestota GOP state senator, Michael Jungbauer, claims to have studied all 13 fields of science related to climate change. Just so you know, no climate scientist would make such an absurd claim.

 Jungbauer is the leading global warming denier in the Minnesota state senate. Turns out he doesn't even have a bachelor degree in ANY field of science.

Ron Paul wonders why scientists changed the name from Global Warming to Climate Change, implying that there is no warming, just climate change.
 
Really?   The Intergovernmental Panel on CLIMATE CHANGE was named and founded 23 years ago, in 1988.   And scientists have used both terms since the mid 1970s.

Speaker of the House - John Boehner
"The idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical"

No Mr Speaker. What is comical and pathetic is that you believe than any scientist would ever say such an absurd thing. Either that or you are playing to the low information voter.
 

 Rep. Shimkus:
"Man will not destroy this Earth. This Earth will not be destroyed by a flood."

God Help Us.

The GOP won't

 

 

 

'Ron Paul wonders why scientists changed the name from Global Warming to Climate Change, implying that there is no warming, just climate change.'

 

Wallace 'Wally' Broecker used the terms Global Warming and Climate Change in the title of his 1975 article in Science "Climate Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming".

As for Ron Paul I figure we could be forgiven for thinking that he admired Ayan Rand given his son's christian name which could give an idea of his ideology base.

Did you watch "The Denial Machine"?  The name change was done to make it seem less disconcerting than it really is.

 

Its kinda like Tar Sands...

Now its 'oil sands'.  Maybe we should call it the 'dirty oil sands', and dirty up the name a bit.
 

"As for Ron Paul I figure we could be forgiven for thinking that he admired Ayan Rand given his son's christian name which could give an idea of his ideology base."

He has stated on record before that he did not name his son Rand after Ayn Rand, but he has also gone on record to say he was a big Ayn Rand fan. Something is not right there.

I used to like Ron Paul, but like anything, you drill down, find out the whole story and your perceptions change.

People who call themselves Libertarians like Ron Paul are just factitious antipodals to Libertarianism. He reminds me of people that call themselves religious (Christian/Muslim/Jew) but do not adhere to the teachings of their religious text.

Ayn Rand would be horrified at people like Ron Paul and visciously oppose him were she alive. He is anti-abortion, against gay marriage and is pro religion, whereas Ayn Rand was the polar opposite. I guess he knows who his campaign funders are and who his core constituents are and needs to create a hybrid libertarian model to incorporate their contradictory views.

How does Ron Paul reconcile his lets bring the troops back home, all wars are wrong, with many of his voter block who say, lets bomb shit out of the Muslims because they are all terrorists? Church on Sunday, lets bomb shit out of them on Monday.

 

 

 

Think the title of my post is unfair?

Then watch this video of the "weapons grade" idiot in action: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2m9SNzxJJA

 

 

Or there are these videos of Al Gore....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbLK4RZDdzI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFK-UTGH1Zw
 

And of course the greates threat ever to humanity;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xf69EEL3WBk

"Or there are these videos of Al Gore...."

I'm not sure who you are trying to impress with those sorts of comments, but really, you guys need to let Al go mate. He didn't invent climate change or global warming......you do know that don't you?

Strange how you guys are only free market capitalists, as long as a Republican is making the money.

 

That's why I ignore him.

 

Phil. Remember that Exxon has a budget to attack Al Gore.  So, even though folks like us have long since forgotten about him, they keep hearing more from the Exxon hate machine.

 

Maybe we should tell Exxon...

"So, even though folks like us have long since forgotten about him, they keep hearing more from the Exxon hate machine."

Oilman, WUWT must have an Al Gore allowance then also, as they have at least one article a week just on Al Gore. He doesn't even have a very big prescence on the world stage anymore in regards to climate change, yet the deniers are still hurting from Inconvenient Truth. It's like the are living a perpetual nightmare where like Jesus & B.C & A.D, there is B.I ( Before Inconvenient truth.......which was nothing wasn't it?) & A.I ( After Inconvenient Truth) where he created climate change and the masses gravitated to him.

In the deniers mind, that was AGW's inception & if they had a time machine & snipers rifle, we wouldn't be talking about what we are talking about now. Al Gore must be made to pay for that disturbance of utopia.

"Maybe we should tell Exxon.."

Hank, can you tell your bosses?

 

Gleick spoke at the annual California Water Policy Conference in Los Angeles and was warmly received by a crowd of roughly 300 California scientists, regulators and advocates.

"At this point I am going to let my last Huffington Post piece and the Heartland documents speak for themselves.”

“Those who deny this science and this evidence are becoming increasingly desperate in their efforts to attack the science and scientists and fool the public and prevent any rational discussion of a climate or energy policy from being adopted,” he said in his remarks.

Pacific Institute’s Peter Gleick Breaks Silence

http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2012/03/09/pacific-institutes-peter-gleick-breaks-silence/

a real hero.

[x]

This is a guest post by Kert Davies, cross-posted with permission from Climate Investigations Center.

This week the Heartland Institute will release another chapter of its NIPCC, the “not the IPCC” document that will tell you the opposite of the main message that’s been coming from the prestigious IPCC...

read more