Fake list fury
The Heartland Institute is a think-tank dedicated to "debunking" global warming. But now it's being debunked.
Environmental activists running a website called DeSmogBlog published an article recently showing that several scientists purported to doubt climate change actually have no such doubts -- and are angry that the Heartland Institute has misrepresented their positions.
DeSmog's target: An earlier piece by Heartland Senior Fellow Dennis T. Avery that listed 500 scientists whose work allegedly contradicts the scientific consensus that human-induced climate change is a serious threat. To read the Heartland article, click here.
****
Here is what the DeSmogBlog wrote: "DeSmog Blog manager Kevin Grandia emailed 122 of the scientists yesterday afternoon, calling their attention to the list. So far - in less than 24 hours - three dozen of those scientists had responded in outrage, denying that their research supports Avery's conclusions and demanding that their names be removed.
****
This is a brief taste of some of the responses that have been copied to the DeSmogBlog:
****
'I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last 20 years arguing the opposite,' wrote Dr. David Sugden, professor of Geography at the University of Edinburgh.
****
'I have NO doubts ..the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there," wrote Dr. Gregory Cutter, Professor, Department of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Old Dominion University.
****
'I don't believe any of my work can be used to support any of the statements listed in the article," wrote Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford.
****
'Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!!' wrote Dr. Svante Bjork, Geo Biosphere Science Centre, Lund University.
****
'I'm outraged that they've included me as an "author" of this report. I do not share the views expressed in the summary,' wrote Dr. John Clague, Shrum Research Professor, Department of Earth Sciences, Simon Fraser University."
****
On a different blog, some Canadians are raising questions about whether the Chicago-based Heartland Insitute is flooding Canadan schools with misleading information suggesting there is still a scientific debate over the existence of global warming.
Check out this site, from a Canadian radio station (AM770 in Calgary).
The Canadian blog reports: "An American think-tank has sent out more than 11,000 brochures and DVDs to Canadian schools urging them to teach their students that scientists are exaggerating how human activity is the driving force behind global warming.
The Chicago-based group, the Heartland Institute, said its goal is to ensure that students are provided with a "balanced" education about "an important and controversial issue," but critics, including a leading climate scientist, described it as a campaign of misinformation.
The mailout, sent in February, included results from international surveys of climate scientists conducted in 1996 and 2003, along with a 10-minute DVD called Unstoppable Solar Cycles, The Real Story of Greenland.
Right away, it seems the "American" card is played, as though this were some foreign intrusion into Canadian schools - guess what people: Al Gore is not from Saskatchewan. The story continues:
"It took me a while to figure out what they were up to," said Eric Betteridge, who teaches at Hillcrest High School.
(...)
(...)
The Sierra Club of Canada said the Heartland Institute's information was far from being balanced.
"It's alarming that an American think-tank is distributing misinformation on the most important issue of our time in Canadian schools, to actually create an illusion that there is a scientific debate," said Emilie Moorhouse, a spokeswoman for the environmental group.
(...)
The brochure and DVD said scientists were "deeply divided" about "the notion that climate change is mostly the result of human activities." It also suggested that the sun was the main factor behind recent warming recorded on the planet.
The package does not make reference to the conclusions reached by governments and scientists from around the world in their 2007 assessment of the latest peer-reviewed research on climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change wrote in its summary of a Nobel Peace Prize-winning report that global warming is unequivocal and that there is a 90-per-cent chance it is being caused by humans.
After reviewing the Heartland Institute package, Mr. Betteridge said he was left feeling amused and distressed that someone would try to promote this material to children in the classroom.
"I think I would be concerned because it was well written, and if somebody hadn't been aware of what the general consensus is among climatologists about global warming, you would begin to think, 'Wow, somebody's giving me the wrong story here'."
I'm not sure what qualifies "Mr. Betteridge" as an expert here - or the Sierra Club, for that matter - but it's interesting to note that nowhere in this story does anyone point out any factual errors in the Heartland Institute material.
And while the package may not reference the IPCC report, I highly doubt the scientific minutia of the IPCC report is part of your typical school curriculum (that could prove interesting). Which, I suppose, begs the question of what is being taught when it comes to the issue of climate change? We've certainly heard about extensive use of Al Gore's error-plagued film, but what else?
Maybe Mr. Betteridge could discuss this with his students (emphasis added):
Over eight out of ten American climate scientists believe that human activity contributes to global warming, according to a new survey released by the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. The researchers also report that belief in human-induced warming has more than doubled since the last major survey of American climate scientists in 1991. However, the survey finds that scientists are still debating the dynamics and dangers of global warming, and only three percent trust newspaper or television coverage of climate change.
Or this:
Global warming will stop until at least 2015 because of natural variations in the climate, scientists have said.
(...)
(...)
This would mean that the 0.3°C global average temperature rise which has been predicted for the next decade by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change may not happen, according to the paper published in the scientific journal Nature.
Maybe this, too:
Four of the past 5 months are “all-time” records for Southern Hemisphere sea ice anomalies, “unprecedented” since the data set began in 1979."
I report on the environment and Chesapeake Bay. A native of West Virginia, I have focused mainly on Maryland's environment since moving here in 1983. Along the way, I've crewed aboard a skipjack in the bay, canoed under city streets up the Jones Fall from the Inner Harbor, and gone deep underground in a western Maryland coal mine. Recently, I have been covering the growth and development transforming the landscape. I love seafood, rambles in the country and good stories. I hope to share some here.
Comments
Just take a look at the funding and some of the Board of Directors and a clearer picture can be drawn.
Heartland’s extreme anti-environmentalism no doubt spawns from its supporters. Between 1998 and 2005, oil giant ExxonMobil gave nearly $800,000 to Heartland. The group’s Board of Directors also explains the group’s climate change denials:
– Thomas Walton is the Director of Economic Policy at General Motors.
–James L. Johnston is a former
senior economist for oil company Amoco Corporation.
–Walter F. Buchholtz is a former member of Heartland’s board of directors and worked as ExxonMobil’s Senior Issues Advisor.
Posted by: Eric Strobel | May 8, 2008 11:50 AM
As a Canadian, I'm appalled that the Heartland Institute is spamming Canadian schools with specious ‘educational’ materials.
This is unacceptable!!!
Posted by: Marc Kobayashi | May 8, 2008 1:22 PM
Perhaps you are unaware that Desmog Blog, while it smears scientists who do not toe the alarmist line, is funded by real dirty money. Their main funder John Lefebver is a convicted money launderer, who used that dirty cash to start the site.
So before you pile on in the smear campagin you should check your facts first.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22611&CFID=3892739&CFTOKEN=86028232
Posted by: Mark Newgent | May 9, 2008 4:34 AM
I see that, even though Heartland's list of 400 scientists is obviously bogus -- in fact, 5 New Zealand scientists themselves have publicly said so, to the NZ Herald -- Mark Newgent has still decided to use Heartland as a credible information source!
Are some people really this dense?
By the way, I have a category on my blog dedicated to this "Heartland 500" debacle. Have fun. :-)
-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism
Posted by: bi -- Intl. J. Inact. | May 11, 2008 12:42 PM
ok then how about all these:
Lefebvre Reportedly Donated “More Than $300,000” To “Start And Operate” DeSmogBlog. “Lefebvre … gave more than $300,000 to help Hoggan establish a website devoted to exposing the links between fossil fuel companies, critics of climate change science and the public relations industry. Hoggan said he became dismayed a few years back that a few public relations firms were helping a small number of skeptics undermine the scientific consensus that humans are changing the climate by burning fossil fuels. He talked to Lefebvre about the need to debunk misinformation about climate change and received a huge donation to start and operate a website called desmogblog.com.” (Doug Ward, “‘Teddy-Bear Hippie’ With A Big Heart,” Edmonton Journal, 1/20/07)
In 1999, Lefebvre Founded NETeller – An Online Gaming Payment Processing Company – And Built A Fortune Estimated To Be “In The Hundreds Of Millions.” “A lawyer by trade and frustrated musician by passion, John Lefebvre became a founding minority partner in NETeller six years ago. In that speck of time, the company specializing in Web-based money transfers mushroomed from a mere notion to more than $2 billion in market capitalization. … Lefebvre, who was barely getting by on cash borrowed from friends a decade ago, has since built a fortune in the hundreds of millions.” (Tom Maloney, “The Fine Art Of Giving,” University Of Calgary’s OnCampus Magazine, 10/14/05)
Lefebvre’s Business Processed Over $7.3 Billion In 2005 – Mostly From North American Gambling Operations – While Lefebvre Served As A Company Director. “NETeller processed more than $7.3 billion in 2005, mostly from North American gambling transactions, prosecutors said in January. Shares of the company, which have been suspended, have fallen 80 per cent in the last year. … Lefebvre stepped down as a non-executive director in December 2005, according to a filing.” (Kelly Sinoski, “B.C. Man, Partner Forfeit $100m, Face Jail In Multibillion-Dollar Scheme,” The Vancouver Sun, 7/11/07)·
The Company Focused “Almost Solely On Internet Gambling Transactions.” “[Lefebvre said] that Neteller was originally created in 1999 to enable the transfer of money online, but eventually concentrated almost solely on Internet gambling transactions.” (Larry Neumeister, “Neteller Deal To Dodge Criminal Charge In Online Gambling Case,” The Associated Press, 7/18/07)
In January 2007, Lefebvre Was Arrested At His Malibu Home And Charged With Criminal Conspiracy To Transfer Funds For Illegal Gambling Purposes. “Saltspring Island resident John Lefebvre is still languishing in a Los Angeles jail on charges that he conspired to transfer funds to promote illegal Internet gambling, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s office in Los Angeles said Wednesday. Thom Mrozek said in an interview that Lefebvre, who was arrested and jailed on Monday, has not yet posted the $5 million US bail set by a federal court judge on Tuesday. … Lefebvre was also required to surrender his passport, which will prevent him from returning to Canada pending his next court appearance, which is scheduled for Jan. 26 in New York City. … Lefebvre was apprehended at his Malibu home.” (David Baines, “B.C. Man Remains In L.A. Jail On Charges Tied To Internet Gambling,” The Vancouver Sun, 1/18/07)
In July 2007, Lefebvre Pleaded Guilty To Criminal Conspiracy Charges – Having Faced Up To Twenty Years In Prison Had The Case Gone To Trial. “A University of Calgary alumnus whose online company made him rich pleaded guilty in a U.S. court Tuesday to a conspiracy charge related to the handling of billions of dollars in illegal gambling proceeds. John Lefebvre, 55, entered the plea before U.S. District Judge Kevin Castel during a hearing in Manhattan … Lefebvre pleaded guilty to a wide-ranging conspiracy charge that included transmitting interstate and foreign bets, promoting gambling offences and operating an unlicensed money transmitting business between 1999 and 2007.” (Kelly Cryderman, “Online Gaming Mogul Pleads Guilty,” The Calgary Herald, 7/11/07)
Lefebvre Admitted Knowingly Breaking U.S. Laws In The Course Of Doing Business And Called His Actions “Wrong.” “‘Providing payment services to online gambling businesses serving customers in the United States was wrong,’ Lefebvre, founder and former president of NETeller, admitted to Judge Kevin Castel. … While pleading guilty on Tuesday, Lefebvre admitted that during the time he operated NETeller, he learned that laws in the U.S. prohibited certain fund transfers for the purpose of gambling.” (Kelly Sinoski, “B.C. Man, Partner Forfeit $100m, Face Jail In Multibillion-Dollar Scheme,” The Vancouver Sun, 7/11/07)
Lefebvre And His Business Partner Forfeited An Estimated $100 Million And Each Faces Up To Five Years In Prison. “A Saltspring Island resident and his partner in an electronic money-transfer venture for Internet gambling customers are on the hook for $100 million US. John Lefebvre, 55, pleaded guilty Tuesday in U.S. Federal Court in Manhattan to conspiring to promote illegal gambling two weeks after his partner Stephen Lawrence, 47, pleaded guilty. The two men will forfeit $100 million they took in from the sale of shares in their venture, NETeller, which they co-founded in 1999. Lefebvre also faces a fine of $250,000, and both men face up to five years in jail. They will be sentenced this fall.” (Kelly Sinoski, “B.C. Man, Partner Forfeit $100m, Face Jail In Multibillion-Dollar Scheme,” The Vancouver Sun, 7/11/07)
Lefebvre – Who Remains Free On $5 Million Bail – Employed Hoggan As A Media Spokesman In The Wake Of His Conviction. “Castel granted a request by Lefebvre’s lawyer to allow his client to remain free on $5 million bail and travel to his home on Saltspring Island. Lefebvre couldn’t be reached at his Saltspring Island home Tuesday. James Hoggan, of Vancouver public relations firm James Hoggan and Associates, said Lefebvre is likely to go back to the island later this week. He said Lefebvre wants to get back into his philanthropic work and his music and plans to continue with community development work in Asia and Africa. ‘He’s really looking forward to putting this behind him,’ Hoggan said.” (Kelly Sinoski, “B.C. Man, Partner Forfeit $100m, Face Jail In Multibillion-Dollar Scheme,” The Vancouver Sun, 7/11/07)
In July 2007, NETeller Reached An Agreement With U.S. Authorities, Acknowledging Guilt And Cooperating With Investigators While Being Allowed To Continue Operations In Europe And Asia. “On July 18, [NETeller] reached a resolution with the US authorities allowing it to refocus on the growing markets of Europe and Asia Pacific. … Under the agreement, Neteller and the US attorney’s office in New York signed a ‘deferred prosecution agreement’ in which the firm acknowledged conspiring to operate an unlicensed money transmitting business and agreed to co-operate with the investigation. In response, prosecutors agreed to drop the charges in 2009 if the company complied with all the terms of the agreement. The company’s shares re-listed on AIM on July 25.” (“Neteller Says Internet Gaming Ban Brings Losses,” Birmingham Post [UK], 8/24/07)
NETeller Forfeited $136 Million And Agreed To Be Monitored For Eighteen Months To Prove It Is No Longer Involved In The U.S. Gambling Industry. “Neteller PLC has agreed to forfeit $136 million and admit wrongdoing for violating U.S. laws against Web-based gambling in a deal to avoid prosecution on a criminal conspiracy charge. … The company also agreed to return $94 million it held in the accounts of U.S. customers. … The deal with prosecutors also requires the company to submit to a monitor for 18 months to ensure the company does not [sic] Internet-based gambling to occur with U.S. customers.” (Larry Neumeister, “Neteller Deal To Dodge Criminal Charge In Online Gambling Case,” The Associated Press, 7/18/07)
Lefebvre Is Scheduled To Be Sentenced On November 1, 2007. “Lefebvre agreed to co-operate with the U.S. government as part of a plea deal. He faces up to five years in prison when he is sentenced on Nov. 1.” (Kelly Cryderman, “Online Gaming Mogul Pleads Guilty,” The Calgary Herald, 7/11/07)
Tom Pelton's response: Okay, even if all this is true -- what does this have to do with global warming?
Posted by: Mark Newgent | May 14, 2008 1:35 PM
You tell me, you are the one who brought up Desmog in the first place.
I'm still waiting for you to acknowldege that the Oreskes review, which you cited, has been thoroughly discredited.
Or maybe admitting that Source Watch, which you used against OISM, is not "non-partisan" as you claimed.
Or how about admitting the fact that IPCC, which you constantly refer to as the supreme arbiter of the state of the science, is not composed solely of climate experts.
Tom Pelton's response: All the scientists I have talked to -- at Johns Hopkins, University of Maryland, and elsewhere -- have a lot of respect for the IPCC. Independently, the National Academies of Science -- and, in the Republican community, from John McCain -- have come to the same conclusion as the IPCC. The complaints I've heard about the Intergovernmental Panel tend to come from anti-regulatory activists.
For example, during the recent debate in Maryland over the Global Warming Solutions Act, climate scientists testified in favor of the bill -- and talked about the IPCC as a well respected authority on the reality of global warming. No scientists showed up to testify on the other side -- zero expert testimony doubting climate change.
Why is that, do you think? There were plenty of people who testified against the bill -- labor unions, paper and steel mills, the chamber of commerce. But no scientists. You might think that if there were scientists here in Maryland who really doubted the realty of climate change, this would have been the occasion for them to come forward and offer their expert opinion. None did. I mean, the state was proposing to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 90 percent -- a dramatic move that would have affected virtually ever resident of the state.
If the science was really on the other side (on the side of the doubters), wouldn't there have been at least one scientist who would have shown up for the hearings in Annapolis?
Posted by: Mark Newgent | May 15, 2008 11:26 AM
Tom
You are responding to an argument I never made. How many scientists did or did not testify for the GWSA in Maryland doesn't really matter here.
You are avoiding my questions.
Have you never heard of Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, Patrick Michaels, Bjorn Lumborg? I know the skeptics are fewer than the alarmists but they are out there. Futhermore, if lists of skeptics are fair game than the IPCC is list of "experts" is fair game as well. Honestely, do the administrative assistants, computer programmers, doctorateless graduate students listed on the IPCC count as experts?
Do you know that the AR Report (the actual scientific report) differs greatly with the SPM Report (written by UN bureaucrats)? You seem to reference only the SPM report. In fact they differ on many important points.
Have you actually looked into the Working Group I peer-review process?
Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis of a significant human influence on climate, and one other endorsed only a specific section.
I won't even get into the conflict of interests involved with most of the reviewers.
Furthermore, you haven't addressed my questions about your use of Oreskes' debunked review or blatantly partisan nature of Source Watch.
At least respond to the argument I made.
Tom's response: If you think someone has debunked the Oreskes report, please send me a copy of the article and I would be happy to read it.
Posted by: Mark Newgent | May 17, 2008 6:46 AM