The Heartland Institute's Quest for "Real Science" on Global Warming

Submitted by Bob Burton on

The Heartland Institute, a Chicago-headquartered think tank that has taken on the role of trying to coordinate the disparate global warming skeptics, has organized yet another conference to be held in Washington this week disputing the reality of global warming. "The real science and economics of climate change support the view that global warming is not a crisis and that immediate action to reduce emissions is not necessary," they claim.

But when the Heartland Institute talks about "real science," it is hard to ignore the fact that for years they have defended the policy agenda of the tobacco industry without disclosing that they were funded by Phillip Morris. Indeed, Heartland still claims to defend the rights of smokers, a ploy long used by the tobacco industry to keep themselves out of the spotlight.

Back in March the think tank organized its second international conference for skeptics. At the time I noted that in 2007 the think tank's President, Joseph L. Bast stated that "gifts from all energy companies -- coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear" accounted for less than five percent of the group's budget. While it may sound like a small amount, it still represented approximately $260,000.

No sooner was the March conference over than Heartland announced that it was organizing another, to be held in Washington on Tuesday June 2. For the March conference, Heartland insisted that "no corporate sponsorships or dollars earmarked for the event were solicited or accepted." Interestingly, there is no equivalent statement on the web page for the latest conference.The real impetus for calling the latest conference at such short notice is the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill, which is wending its way through Congress.

The speakers at the latest conference, which includes veteran skeptics such as Richard Lindzen and Patrick Michaels, are not likely to say much that they haven't said before. In a recent interview, leading climate scientist Stephen H. Schneider commented that the skeptics "have very few mainstream climate scientists who publish original research in climate refereed journals with them -- a petroleum geologist's opinion on climate science is a as good as a climate scientist's opinion on oil reserves. So petitions sent to hundreds of thousands of earth scientists are frauds. If these guys think they are 'winning,' why don't they try to take on face to face real climatologists at real meetings -- not fake ideology shows like Heartland Institute -- but with those with real knowledge -- because they'd be slaughtered in public debate by Trenberth, Santer, Hansen, Oppenheimer, Allen, Mitchell, even little ol' me. It’s easy to blog, easy to write op-eds in the Wall Street Journal."

But the purpose of the Heartland Institute's conference is not about "real science," as most people understand it. Instead, its conference is more about maintaining the rage of the hard-core skeptics and their supporters in the hope that any legislation that emerges from Congress will be so compromised that it will make little if any difference in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

What the coal and oil lobby know is that the nature of what is agreed to by the Congress will play a major role in determining what the Obama administration will agree to in negotiations over the successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol to be discussed at the COP15 meeting in Copenhagen in December. As Todd Stern, the U.S. special envoy on climate change, stated at the conclusion of a recent meeting of the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate, "an issue for us is always [reaching] an agreement... that can produce consensus internationally and it can also be approved back at home."

It would be easy to dismiss the Heartland Institute's conference as just another fringe event. However, with the Democrats having only a narrow majority in the Senate, a couple of votes would be enough to water down the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill even further. Added to that is the fact that for a treaty to be ratified, two-thirds of Senate members must support it.

Climate Change
U.S. Congress
Think Tanks

MORE LIKE THIS:

Comments

Mutternich replied on

<blockquote>The emphasis on carbon, one of the most common elements in life on this planet, as the main bad guy is absurd and scary. </blockquote> So, carbon is harmless because it's such a common element? Okay then, let's combine an atom of carbon with one of another very common element, nitrogen, which comprises 78 percent of the earth's atmosphere. Then tack on an atom of the most abundant element in the entire universe, namely hydrogen. Take a deep breath -- you've just made hydrogen cyanide! I agree, expressions like "carbon footprint" can be confusing -- they've apparently confused you. We're really talking about carbon dioxide, CO2, which is necessary in minute quantities, but will do us in unless we rein in our runaway production of it. As for PR campaigns, it's the deniers who are spending the big bucks on "obscuring the reality of our situation and the steps we need to take to protect and promote life on this planet."

Anonymous replied on

Has carbon ever combined with hydrogen in the atmosphere to create hydrogen cyanide? I think the point being made is that the issue of global warming has put cage over all the other environmental issues and has created an illusion that if we solve global warming we solve all the environmental problems. What about carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide (remember acid rain?), nitrogen oxide, ozone, and hydrocarbons. All of these gases released in auto emissions and yet we don't even talk about these threats to the environment anymore.

Mutternich replied on

Here's what he said: <blockquote>The emphasis on carbon, one of the most common elements in life on this planet, as the main bad guy is absurd and scary</blockquote> I'm saying it's scary that this person can make the absurd statement that climate scientists are making the "common element carbon" the bad guy, when they're really talking about a <i>compound</i> of carbon, namely CO2, which is quite scarce in the atmosphere, except that humans have started pumping it out in ever more climatologically significant amounts in recent decades. <blockquote>What about carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide (remember acid rain?), nitrogen oxide, ozone, and hydrocarbons. All of these gases released in auto emissions and yet we don't even talk about these threats to the environment anymore. </blockquote> And once again, just because climate scientists are most concerned with the overarching challenge of global warming, that doesn't mean they arent concerned about other environmental issues. For example, in case you missed it, James Hanson got arrested while protesting mountaintop-removal coal mining recently. On the other hand, if we don't deal with global warming effectively, and soon, there just might not be enough of us left to produce much more of that other bad stuff: http://tinyurl.com/m5662o

Anonymous replied on

Daryl Hannah got arrested too along with many others. I am glad to see so many take a stand against such horrible destruction. The Irony I am seeing is that coal seems to be getting a new lease on life because of clean coal technology. Politicians and coal barons claim it can be burned cleaner, and, therefore reduce its impact on global warming. They give us more environmental destruction and get away with it because they can use the global warming argument and give the illusion that they are doing their part to reduce harmful emissions.

Fred007 replied on

I am almost out of patience with the world-reformers and their "global warming" theory, which I consider deliberate hoax. I have noticed that these same folks are now calling it "climate change" to defend their collectivist position that it is all the fault of people, who need to be regulated. How distressing to find that the earth has been cooling for about the last ten years! Carbon dioxide is a bio-friendly gas, unlike sulfur dioxide. In horticulture and agriculture it is added to the atmosphere in greenhouses because it increases crop yields. Earth's atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have varied over time for as far back as scientists can extrapolate. Increases in carbon dioxide levels have always been associated with good things, like more plant growth – and has never been shown to have a bad effect on anything. The human respiratory center in the floor of the fourth ventricle is stimulated by carbon dioxide dissolved in the blood. If these "humanitarian" planners ever succeed in reducing carbon dioxide atmospheric levels to zero, some of us would probably forget to breathe. Now you can stop feeling guilty about breathing. You can trust me on that. I am a retired physician and biomedical researcher.

Mutternich replied on

<blockquote>If these "humanitarian" planners ever succeed in reducing carbon dioxide atmospheric levels to zero...</blockquote> You should be careful making jokes like that; climate-change deniers less well informed than you might easily take it seriously and make fools of themselves parroting the claim that "humanitarian planners want to reduce CO2 levels to zero." After all, a retired physician and biomedical researcher said it -- trust him! So, for the record: the best outcome anyone ever hoped for has never been any reduction of CO2 in our atmosphere, merely limiting its increase to amounts that will produce less than disastrous results for the world's population as global temperatures rise. And it is happening. Your fear of "collectivism" seems to have focused you too narrowly on individual ventricles.

Anonymous replied on

Once again, you display your fine skills in twisting remarks around and interpreting them in a way which deliberately obscures the point that was originally being made, albeit in a brief, limited way because most of us have work to do and can't afford to sit around commenting all day. This comment relates to the public relations campaign which has insinuated itself into the media, the schools, environmental action and political action groups, etc., which has commonly promoted the use of the terms "carbon", and "carbon footprint" as catch-words. But even if you want to talk about carbon dioxide, I think that in reality we have many more ominous problems we need to face. This issue, like the whole Democrat/Republican or left/right split, is another way in which we are being misled, confused, divided, and sidetracked.

Anonymous replied on

Carbon dioxide is exhaled by mammals, taken up by plants, released by decaying organic material to be recycled in on of the many natural cycles that are necessary for life on this planet. Anyway, who are you? You seem to be very skilled at taking people's comments out of context and then trying to make them look confused or stupid. What is your agenda? Do you have any ideas of your own to share, or is your task limited to picking apart and criticizing other people and their sincere opinions?

JimInNewYork replied on

It is interesting to watch those who look at data and see holes described as 'skeptics" while those who look at data and draw conclusions with the holes as "scientists". A real scientist would never close a discussion on something as complex as climate change and declare it conclusive and thus action must be taken. A real scientist would not support a solution set that includes a cap and trade scheme that does not solve the problem described. Only a politician would declare this topic concluded and this solution objective.

Mutternich replied on

<blockquote>A real scientist would not support a solution set that includes a cap and trade scheme that does not solve the problem described. Only a politician would declare this topic concluded and this solution objective. </blockquote> You sound like a real expert on what "real scientists" would or wouldn't do. If politicians won't go for a solution set that Wall Street can't make billions and trillions off of, that's not scientists' doing. It's our magnificent free enterprise system, that has made America the greatest...etc., etc., etc.

Pages