Libertarian Group Demands NASA Remove False '97 Percent Consensus' Global Warming Claim
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
On Tuesday, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) sent NASA a formal complaint, asking the agency to withdraw the false claim that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that humans are the primary cause of global warming and climate change. The 2013 study purporting to demonstrate that number was fatally flawed and proved no such thing.
"The claim that 97% of climate scientists believe humans are the primary cause of global warming is simply false," CEI attorney Devin Watkins said in a statement. "That figure was created only by ignoring many climate scientists’ views, including those of undecided scientists. It is time that NASA correct the record and present unbiased figures to the public."
According to the CEI complaint , NASA's decision to repeat the false claim violated the Information Quality Act (IQA). Specifically, NASA claimed that "[n]inety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities." The claim appears on the NASA website on the page "Climate Change: How Do We Know?"
The claim traces back to a study led by John Cook entitled " Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature " and published in the journal Environmental Research Letters in 2013.
The study is fundamentally dishonest, as the CEI complaint explains. The study analyzed all published peer-reviewed academic research papers from 1991 to 2011 that use the terms "global warming" or "global climate change." The study placed the papers into seven categories: explicit endorsement with quantification, saying humans are responsible for 50+ percent of climate change; explicit endorsement without quantification; implicit endorsement; no position or uncertain; implicit rejection; explicit rejection with qualification; and explicit rejection without qualification.
The study found: 64 papers had explicitly endorsed anthropogenic global warming (AGW) with quantification (attributing at least half of climate change to humans); 922 papers had explicitly endorsed AGW without quantifying how much humans contribute; 2,910 papers had implicitly endorsed AGW; 7,930 papers did not state a position and 40 papers were uncertain; 54 papers implicitly rejected AGW by affirming the possibility that natural causes explain climate change; 15 papers explicitly rejected AGW without qualification; and 9 papers explicitly rejected AGW with quantification, saying human contributions to global warming are negligible.
So how did Cook and his team come up with the 97 percent number? They added up the first three categories (3,896 papers), compared them to the last three categories (78 papers) and the papers expressing uncertainty (40 papers), and completely ignored the nearly 8,000 papers that did not state a position.
Of the papers Cook's team characterized as stating a position, 97 percent (3,896 of the 4,014 papers) favored the idea of man-made global warming.
See the problem? The study completely discounted the majority of the papers it analyzed (66.4 percent — 7,930 of the 11,944 papers analyzed). With those papers included, only 32.6 percent of the papers explicitly or implicitly endorsed AGW (3,896 of 11,944 papers).
But it gets worse. Many of the scientists who wrote the original papers Cooks' team analyzed complained that this study mischaracterized their research .
The survey "included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral," complained Dr. Richard Tol, professor of the economics of climate change at Vrije Universiteit.
He argued that of the 112 omitted papers, only 1 strongly endorses man-made global warming.
"That is not an accurate representation of my paper," wrote geography Ph.D. Craig Idso. "Nope ... it is not an accurate representation," Nir Shaviv, associate professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, wrote.
Ph.D. physicist Nicola Scafetta complained that "Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AAGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission."
Cook's team categorized his paper as one that "explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%." Scafetta countered, "What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun."
Even including Scafetta's incorrectly categorized study, Cook's team only found 64 papers that explicitly endorsed man-made global warming and attributed more than 50 percent of it to human activity. That represents a minuscule 0.5 percent of the 11,944 papers. Even excluding the 66.4 percent of the papers that did not take a position, the 50 percent plus approach only accounts for 1.6 percent of all papers in the Cook study.
The study — and the 97 percent figure that depends on it — is fatally flawed, and NASA has 120 days to respond to the CEI complaint. It is far past time people reject this false claim.
Georgia Tech Climatologist Chooses 'Career Suicide' to Keep Her 'Scientific Integrity'
Tags
Who is online
608 visitors
“According to the CEI complaint, NASA's decision to repeat the false claim violated the Information Quality Act (IQA). Specifically, NASA claimed that "[n]inety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities." The claim appears on the NASA website on the page "Climate Change: How Do We Know?"
The claim traces back to a study led by John Cook entitled "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature" and published in the journal Environmental Research Letters in 2013.
The study is fundamentally dishonest, as the CEI complaint explains. The study analyzed all published peer-reviewed academic research papers from 1991 to 2011 that use the terms "global warming" or "global climate change." The study placed the papers into seven categories: explicit endorsement with quantification, saying humans are responsible for 50+ percent of climate change; explicit endorsement without quantification; implicit endorsement; no position or uncertain; implicit rejection; explicit rejection with qualification; and explicit rejection without qualification.
The study found: 64 papers had explicitly endorsed anthropogenic global warming (AGW) with quantification (attributing at least half of climate change to humans); 922 papers had explicitly endorsed AGW without quantifying how much humans contribute; 2,910 papers had implicitly endorsed AGW; 7,930 papers did not state a position and 40 papers were uncertain; 54 papers implicitly rejected AGW by affirming the possibility that natural causes explain climate change; 15 papers explicitly rejected AGW without qualification; and 9 papers explicitly rejected AGW with quantification, saying human contributions to global warming are negligible.
So how did Cook and his team come up with the 97 percent number? They added up the first three categories (3,896 papers), compared them to the last three categories (78 papers) and the papers expressing uncertainty (40 papers), and completely ignored the nearly 8,000 papers that did not state a position.
Of the papers Cook's team characterized as stating a position, 97 percent (3,896 of the 4,014 papers) favored the idea of man-made global warming.
See the problem? The study completely discounted the majority of the papers it analyzed (66.4 percent — 7,930 of the 11,944 papers analyzed). With those papers included, only 32.6 percent of the papers explicitly or implicitly endorsed AGW (3,896 of 11,944 papers).
But it gets worse. Many of the scientists who wrote the original papers Cooks' team analyzed complained that this study mischaracterized their research.”
https://cei.org/sites/default/files/IQA_NASA_97_Percent_Final.pdf
Very compelling.
It will be interesting to see how NASA responds.
Compelling? Denial is hardly compelling. Why would NASA even respond to nonsense?
How would you know? You clearly didn't bother to read the letter.
It's either that [Deleted]
Because they are required to by law.
Since when does the law mean anything to this crowd. The whole climate change model itself is a giant fraud.
I wouldn't go that far.
But based on what i'm seeing, the 97% number is. And heads should roll for the people who perpetrated it.
Heads should roll? For what?
Pushing an inaccurate narrative.
Out here in the real world there are consequences when you lie.
I know that's a tough concept for some moon-bats out there to accept but there you go ....
You clearly didn't bother to read the study that the letter is whining about.
I clearly did and i'm not interesting in arguing with the likes of you today so have a good one.
Buh bye
So then you should know that the study DID address the papers that cited 'no position' and that the methodology CLEARLY states that the percentages that they cited did not include those papers. Claiming that they were 'ignoring many climate scientists’ views, including those of undecided scientists' is utter bullshit.
After reading the study, you should also know that the article's claim that the 'no position' papers were 'completely ignored' is a lie. Those papers are cited in the study and included as percentages on the graphs. That fact is proven by the article citing the number of those no position papers [though inflated] as cited in the study.
Oh and BTFW, I presume that your supercilious 'the likes of you' comment reflects how you would like to be addressed in the future.
Not only do they justify it, they label and malign others who question their manipulation of scientific data.
The 97% consensus on global warming - Skeptical Science
Not really. Just because some people bow down before and worship the pro science consensus as if it were a god doesn’t mean most do. I’m sure that CEI will nowbe labeled as conspiracy-pseudoscience by some for courageously bringing this action against NASA. The law is clear and the Competitive Enterprise Institute case is right on.
Competitive Enterprise Institute. The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) is a advocacy group based in Washington DC with long ties to tobacco disinformation campaigns and more recently to climate change denial.Sep 13, 2018
As opposed to those that bow down and worship ( not that anyone really does that ) the pseudoscience viewpoint?
I am confused, why would someone not be pro science?
These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. See all Right-Center sources.
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Notes: The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) is a non-profit, libertarian think tank in the United States. Founded by Fred L. Smith, Jr., on March 9, 1984, in Washington, D.C., it seeks to advance economic liberty by fighting excessive government regulation because it believes that a free marketplace that allows entrepreneurship and innovation to thrive is better policy. This source is sometimes questionable when dealing with consensus science, but typically sources to credible information. Has a pro-libertarian bias. (D. Van Zandt 7/12/2016)
Source:
What nonsense.
Yep, i agree.
Manipulating the the data, to gundeck an outcome of a 97% consensus. is total nonsense.
How was the data manipulated?
The seeded article is quite clear as to how data was manipulated.
She just wants to argue for the sake of arguing.
SOSDD
The seeded article is bullshit.
Good point.
Really? It’s factually based and it’s about a legal action by a group against NASA for their so called pro science consensus bias that is not factually accurate. What about what was written do you disagree about and why?
Yes really.
Actually it's NOT about a 'legal action' Xx.
Secondly, the study is factually accurate and in fact the article quote it's data.
I've already made that clear. READ my comments 1.1.11 and 6.1.10.
“"The claim that 97% of climate scientists believe humans are the primary cause of global warming is simply false," CEI attorney Devin Watkins said in a statement. "That figure was created only by ignoring many climate scientists’ views, including those of undecided scientists. It is time that NASA correct the record and present unbiased figures to the public."
According to the CEI complaint, NASA's decision to repeat the false claim violated the Information Quality Act (IQA). Specifically, NASA claimed that "[n]inety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities." The claim appears on the NASA website on the page "Climate Change: How Do We Know?"
The claim traces back to a study led by John Cook entitled "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature" and published in the journal Environmental Research Letters in 2013.
The study is fundamentally dishonest, as the CEI complaint explains.”
The CEI complaint is what's fundamentally dishonest.
Then no problem, the complaint will get tossed if its false.
I wouldn't bet on it getting tossed though from what i've seen of this game of words.
The CEI complaint is honest and factually correct. It has been the proponents of man caused climate change who have fudged and manipulated data to lie their way to their desired conclusion and that’s been well documented.
Again, it isn't and I have already stated why. Your repeated proclamations don't prove anything.
“Renee Wynn
NASA Chief Information Officer 300 E. Street SW, Suite 5R30 Washington, DC 20546
(202) 358-0001 (Office)
Via Email: Renee.p.Wynn@nasa.gov Re: Information Quality Act Correction Request Regarding NASA’s Claim that 97 Percent of Scientists Agree on Anthropogenic Global Warming
The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) submits this request for correction under the Information Quality Act (IQA), 114 Stat. 2763, section 515, as implemented through National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidelines. These guidelines were expanded by OMB in a memorandum issued on April 24, 2019.1 The information we seek to have corrected is the claim, on NASA’s website, that 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are responsible for global warming.
We expect a response to this request for correction (RFC) within 120 days. Under OMB’s new requirements, “agencies will not take more than 120 days to respond to an RFC without the concurrence of the party that requested the request for correction.” In addition, the new OMB guidelines require that, “The agency response should contain a point-by-point response to any data quality arguments contained in the RFC and should refer to a peer review that directly considered the issue being raised, if available.” Furthermore, “[a]gencies should share draft responses to RFCs and appeals with OMB prior to release to the requestor for assessment of compliance with the above norms.” Thus, responses to correction requests now need to be reviewed in advance by OMB sufficiently in advance of the 120-day deadline.
We ask NASA to determine that the claim that “[n]inety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities” violates the IQA. As is shown below, that claim is not objective; it is neither accurate nor reliable nor unbiased. This claim appears on the NASA web page titled “Climate Change: How Do We Know?” among others.2
1 Executive Office of the President, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, M-19-15, April 24, 2019, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/M-19-15.pdf.
2 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, “Climate Change: How Do We Know?” Global Climate Changes: Vital Signs of the Planet, accessed June 27, 2019, https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/.
1
This claim has been widely criticized. Examples of scientific peer-reviewed criticism include:
• Richard Tol, “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis.”3 As the abstract of this article states in part:
o A claim has been that 97% of the scientific literature endorses anthropogenic climate change. This claim, frequently repeated in debates about climate policy, does not stand. A trend in composition is mistaken for a trend in endorsement. Reported results are inconsistent and biased. (Citations removed.)
• Richard Tol, “Comment on ‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature.’”4
o [The claim] omits tests for systematic differences between raters. Many abstracts are unaccounted for.
• David R. Legates, Willie Soon, William M. Briggs, Christopher Monckton, “Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change, Science & Education.”5 One key conclusion of their analysis is that:
o “[I]nspection of a claim ... of 97.1% consensus ... shows just 0.3% endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.” (Citations removed.)
A number of experts have also criticized the claim in non-peer-reviewed publications, such as:
• Roy Spencer (U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite and principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville), “The myth of the 97 percent global warming consensus”6
• Neil L. Frank (meteorologist, former director of the National Hurricane Center in Florida), “What’s Wrong with the Claim that ‘97% of Climate Scientists Agree’ about Global Warming?”7
3 Richard Tol, “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature: A re- analysis,” Energy Policy, Vol. 73 (October 2014), pp. 701-705, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421514002821.
4 Tol, “Comment on ‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature,’” Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 11 (2016), https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048001. 5 David R. Legates, Willie Soon, William M Briggs, and Christopher Monckton, “Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation:’ A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change,” Science & Education, Vol. 24, Issue 3, 299-318 (April 2015), https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11191-013-9647-9.
6 Roy Spencer, “The myth of the 97 percent global warming consensus,” Alabama.com, March 31, 2016, https://www.al.com/opinion/2016/03/the_myth_of_the_97_percent_glo.html.
7 Neil L. Frank, “What’s Wrong with the Claim that ‘97% of Climate Scientists Agree’ about Global Warming?” https://cornwallalliance.org/2017/06/whats-wrong-with-the-claim-that-97-of-climate-scientists-agree-about-global- warming/
2
• David Henderson (economist, formerly on the President’s Council of Economic Advisers), “1.6%, Not 97%, Agree that Humans are the Main Cause of Global Warming”8
Many other commentators have also criticized the claim:
• Alex Epstein, “‘97% of Climate Scientists Agree’ Is 100% Wrong”9
• Ian Tuttle, “The 97 Percent Solution”10
• Justin Fox, “97 Percent Consensus on Climate Change? It’s Complicated”11
• Michael Bastasch, “Where did '97 Percent' Global Warming Consensus Figure Come
From?”12
In support of its 97% statement, NASA cites five studies; two by John Cook, and others by
William Anderegg, Peter Doran, and Naomi Oreskes. But as shown below, none of these studies
adequately support the claim.
The oldest study cited by NASA is the study by history professor Naomi Oreskes. But as pointed
out below, due to criticism Oreskes had to issue a formal correction. The
Doran and
Anderegg
studies examined different aspects—a survey and public statements, respectively. However,
those authors acknowledge that these methods cannot determine the overall percentage of
scientist who agree. The Cook study was in many ways an attempt to redo the original Oreskes
study with a broader and more complete scope and without the problem that required formal
correction by Oreskes. M
any of the scientists whose papers were evaluated by Cook claim their research was inaccurately categorized, which raises basic questions about the study’s
reliability.13
As the Cook et al. study is the most recent, and the most cited, this request for correction will
start with it, focusing first on the original 2013 study and then the 2016 response to criticism.
After that, each study will be examined in reverse chronological order.
8 David Henderson, “1.6%, Not 97%, Agree that Humans are the Main Cause of Global Warming,” EconLog, The Library of Economics and Liberty, Liberty Fund, May 14, 104, https://www.econlib.org/archives/2014/03/16_not_97_agree.html.
9 Alex Epstein, “‘97% of Climate Scientists Agree’ Is 100% Wrong,” Forbes.com, January 6, 2015, https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/.
10 Ian Tuttle, “The 97 Percent Solution,” National Review Online, October 8, 2015, https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/10/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle/.
11 Justin Fox, “97 Percent Consensus on Climate Change? It’s Complicated,” Bloomberg, June 14, 2017, https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2017-06-15/97-percent-consensus-on-climate-change-it-s-complicated. 12 Michael Bastasch, “Where did '97 Percent' Global Warming Consensus Figure Come From?” Daily Caller, May 16, 2014, https://dailycaller.com/2014/05/16/where-did-97-percent-global-warming-consensus-figure-come-from/. 13 “97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists’ Papers, according to the scientists that published them,” Popular Technology, May 21, 2013, http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html.
3
1. The 2013 Cook Study
In this study,14 Cook and his team collected all published peer-reviewed papers from 1991
through 2011 that use the terms “global warming” or “global climate change.” Those totaled
11,944 papers. The Cook team then examined the title and abstract of each paper and based only
on that (no examination of the body of the article), and attempted to classify each paper as one of
the following categories:
(1) Explicit endorsement with quantification;
(2) Explicit endorsement without quantification;
(3) Implicit endorsement;
(4a) No position;
(4b) Uncertain;
(5) Implicit rejection;
(6) Explicit rejection with qualification; and
(7) Explicit rejection without qualification.
The authors report the following results:
• • •
• • •
• •
64 papers explicitly endorsed anthropogenic global warming (AGW) with quantification
(affirming that at least half of the global warming is due to humans),
922 papers explicitly endorsed AGW without quantification (affirming that humans cause
global warming to some unspecified degree)
2910 papers implicitly endorsed AGW (e.g., “carbon sequestration in soil is important for
mitigating global climate change”)
7930 papers did not state a position on AGW
40 papers were uncertain as to AGW
54 papers implicitly rejected AGW (affirming the possibility for natural causes to explain
the increase in temperature)
15 papers explicitly rejected AGW without quantification (affirming that there is little
support for catastrophic global warming)
9 papers explicitly rejected AGW with quantification (affirming that the human
contribution to global warming is negligible)
The paper then added the first three categories together (3,896 papers) and compared that to the
sum of the last three categories (78 papers) plus studies expressing uncertainty (40 papers). In
short, 4,014 papers (3896 + 78 + 40 = 4014), expressed or implied a position on AGW. Of these
3,896 or 97% supposedly affirmed the consensus view. But this was 97% of abstracts of papers
in which a position was taken. But this total did not include the 66.4% of all papers that did not
14 John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A Green, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs, and Andrew Skuce, “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature,” Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 8 (2013), https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748- 9326/8/2/024024.
4
take a position (4a). In other words, at most, Cook et al. found that about one-third of peer-
reviewed papers containing the search terms “global warming” or “global climate change”
endorse the consensus viewpoint—a far cry from 97%.
As noted earlier, many of the scientists whose papers were categorized as supporting AGW dispute the accuracy of that categorization:
• “[S]urvey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.” —Dr. Richard Tol15
• “That is not an accurate representation of my paper.” —Dr. Craig Idso16
• “Nope ... it is not an accurate representation.”—Dr. Nir Shaviv17
• “Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument.”—Dr. Nicola Scafetta18
Of the categories evaluated by the Cook study, only explicit endorsement with quantification supports the NASA statement that humans are the primary cause of global warming rather than merely a small factor. In other words, according to the Cook team’s own data, only 0.5% of the papers reviewed support the NASA claim (64 of 11,944). The Cook researchers actually found more papers skeptical of NASA’s statement than those supporting NASA’s claim.
that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.”
Cook et al. also emailed 8,547 paper authors to obtain additional information on their AGW views. Only 14% of the authors responded. Of those who responded, 62.7% self-described themselves as endorsing AGW, 35.5% stated they had no position, and 1.8% rejected AGW. If one considers only those that responded with a position (62.7 + 1.8 = 64.5 % of the total), this produces the 97% figure (62.7/64.5 = 97%). However, this data does not support any claim concerning the 35.5% of scientists who took no positon on AGW. Nor does the data support any claim concerning the 86% who did not respond. The data does not include all climate scientists, only those that were willing to respond and who explicitly stated they had a position on the issue.
15 Richard Tol, Twitter post, May 22, 2013, 1:43 AM, https://twitter.com/richardtol/status/337126632080957441. 16 Popular Technology, supra note 14.
17 Ibid.
18 Ibid.
19 Legates et al, supra note 5.
Legates’s peer-reviewed independent study reevaluating the 64 articles that Cook said explicitly
endorsed AGW (that more than half of the warming was caused by humans) found that actually
only 41 made such claims.19
Additionally, the study did not include the 64.6% of the authors who took no position on
anthropogenic global warming (4a). As such, this study cannot be used to draw a conclusion
about the views of these scientists. It does not show, as claimed by NASA, that these 64.6%
scientists support the conclusion “
5
As such, this paper does not support NASA’s claim. Nor can it be used to argue those who declined to respond or took no position concur with this view.
2. The 2016 Paper by Cook
This paper20 responded to criticism by Richard Tol.21 Tol had noted that it was inappropriate to assume that a “no-position” statement actually endorsed anthropogenic global warming. Cook responded by accusing Tol of the opposite error—that is, equating no position with rejection of the AGW thesis:
[The Cook 2013 paper] omitted abstracts that did not state a position on AGW to derive its consensus estimate of 97%. ... In contrast, in one analysis, Tol (2016) effectively treats no-position abstracts as rejecting AGW, thereby deriving consensus values less than 35%.
Cook rejects “Equating no-position papers with rejection.” As Cook notes, it is inappropriate to take no-position abstracts as rejecting anthropogenic global warming. But, for the same reason, it is inappropriate to take such “no-position” statements as endorsing anthropogenic global warming.
But what Cook objects to is exactly what NASA has done—it takes the “no-position” statements by various scientists as endorsing a specific position. It is inappropriate to make such a conclusion either way without evidence.
3. The 2010 Anderegg Study
This study attempted to survey the field of climate research by sorting scientists into two groups, those the author claimed were supporters of anthropogenic global warming (Group A), and public opponents anthropogenic global warming in (Group B):
A. Group A consisted of members of:
a. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change AR4 Working
Group I Contributors (coordinating lead authors, lead authors, and contributing
authors; 619 names listed);
b. 2007 Bali Declaration signers (212 names listed);
c. Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS) 2006 statement
(120 names listed);
d. CMOS 2008 statement (130 names listed); and
e. 37 signers of open letter protesting The Great Global Warming Swindle film.
20 John Cook, Naomi Oreskes, Peter T Doran, William R L Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed W Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, Stephan Lewandowsky, Andrew Skuce, and Sarah A Green, “Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming,” Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 11 (2016), https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002.
21 Tol, “Comment on 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature.”
6
After removing duplicates the list had 903 names.
B. Group B consisted of signers of:
a. The 1992 statement from the Science and Environmental Policy Project (46
names);
b. 1995 Leipzig Declaration (80 names);
c. 2002 letter to Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien (30 names);
d. 2003 letter to Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin (46 names);
e. 2006 letter to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper (61 names);
f. 2007 letter to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon (100 names);
g. NIPCC: 2008 Heartland Institute document “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules
the Climate, (24 listed contributors);
h. 2008 Manhattan Declaration from a conference in New York City (206 names
listed as qualified experts);
i. 2009 newspaper ad by the Cato Institute challenging President Obama’s stance on
climate change (115 signers);
j. 2009 Heartland Institute document “Climate Change Reconsidered: 2009 Report
of the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)” (36 authors);
k. 2009 letter to the American Physical Society (61 names); and
l. Interviewees in the 2007 TV film “The Great Global Warming Swindle” (17
names).
After removing duplicates, there was a total of 472 names.22
Three people were members of both data sets. The author of the study then excluded from both lists persons who had not published a minimum of 20 peer-reviewed papers in climate science. This arbitrary limitation removed 10% of people from list A, and 80% of the people from list B. Even after this elimination, 11% of the total were still in group B.
Note, too, that category B did not include:
(1) The more than 650 scientists listed in the minority report of the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee published on December 11, 2008 titled “More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims Scientists Continue to Debunk ‘Consensus;’”23
(2) The Oregon Petition which included 31,479 American scientists, including 9,029 PhDs, (after removal of various factitious names deceptively added);24 and
22 William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider, Expert credibility in climate change (2010), https://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.
23 U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, “More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent over Man-Made Global Warming Claims Scientists Continue to Debunk ‘Consensus’ in 2008,” Minority Staff Report (Update of the 2007 Report: “Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made
Global Warming Claims in 2007”), December 11, 2008,
https://web.archive.org/web/20130317191713/http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&File Store_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9.
24 Global Warming Petition Project, accessed June 27, 2019, http://petitionproject.org/signers_by_last_name.php?run=all.
7
(3) The list of 500 scientists from the Heartland Institute in 2007.25
Failure to include these sources, without explanation, substantially undermines the significance of this study.
This paper admits that, “Our dataset is not comprehensive of the climate community and therefore does not infer absolute numbers or proportions of all [those convinced by the evidence] versus all researchers [unconvinced by the evidence].” This qualification is totally ignored by NASA. The paper itself states it cannot be used, as NASA has done, to infer the proportion of all climate scientists.
In short, the paper does not support NASA’s 97% claim. Excluding from the survey those who have published fewer than 20 studies arbitrarily narrows the sample size. Many potential scientists for Group B were not included. Even so, Anderegg estimates 11% of scientists oppose AGW. Most scientists simply do not make such position statements (and as such were in neither list), and we cannot infer what those scientists believe by their lack of a public statement, as NASA has done.
4. The 2009 Doran Study
This study was based on a survey to 10,257 Earth Science faculty with two questions:
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?26
The results showed that 30.7% of the individuals who received the survey responded to it. Of the 3,146 respondents 18% stated that human activity was not a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures. Of those 3,146 respondents, 5%, or about 157 individuals, were what the authors of the study called “climate scientists” (self-described, and having no other primary specialty).
The authors noted that 8.5% of the respondents indicated that more than 50% of their peer- reviewed publications in the last 5 years were on the subject of climate change, but even these individuals were not considered “climate scientists.” Excluded from the definition of “climate scientists” were people with expertise in areas such as oceanography, hydrology, paleontology, and meteorology, which can help provide expertise related to the climate and to the historical climate record.
25 Dennis Avery, “500 Scientiets Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scare,” Heartland Institute, September 14, 2007, https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/500-scientists-whose- research-contradicts-man-made-global-warming-scares.
26 Peter T. Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change (2009), https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2009EO030002.
8
The survey respondents were not allowed to select multiple categories of specialization, so it excluded scientists who also consider themselves “climate scientists,” in addition to other
specialization areas.
Response Rate
Did not Respond
Actively Publishing In Peer-Reviewed Journals on Climate Change, but Rejected by Doran as "Climate Scientists"
Authors not considered "climate scientists" by Doran despite having more than half of their peer-reviewed publications on climate change.
The final figure did not even include all “climate scientists” (as described by the author) or those who were actively publishing, as those that did not also publish at least half their peer-reviewed papers on climate change were excluded. Of the scientists with more than half of their publications in peer reviewed journals on climate change, 41% were not considered “climate scientists” by Doran. The views of a well-respected climate scientist with papers on a variety of non-climate-change climate issues, as well as highly cited climate change papers, would be excluded. The final results of this survey were based on a total of just 79 individuals.
Climate Scientsts Whose Views Were Rejected
Climate Scientists Whose Views Were Not Included
Climate Scientists Who Were Included
Out of a total of 10,257 scientific faculty members at major institutions, only 79 were counted in the final tally by the author. That is a mere 0.07% of the total number of scientific faculty to whom the survey was sent.
9
But even with these caveats, this survey does not support the statement by NASA. This survey only asked if human activity was a “significant contributing factor,” not if it was “extremely likely due to human activities,” the latter is the wording that NASA uses. The survey speaks of human activity merely as a significant factor of warming, while the NASA statement suggests that human activity is the primary cause. The NASA statement also concerns itself with the likelihood of such causation, which this survey did not ask about.
In addition, 69% of the scientists who received the survey did not respond to it. Therefore, no conclusion can be reached concerning the non-responding scientists’ beliefs concerning the causes of global warming. Perhaps those who do not believe in man-made global warming do not respond to surveys they consider to be biased against them. We do not know and cannot assume to know why they did not respond to the survey. Regardless, a survey which rejects the views of many climate scientists cannot be used to support NASA’s statement.
5. The 2004 Oreskes Study
In this study, Oreskes started with the abstracts of peer-reviewed articles published between 1993 and 2003 with a keyword in the Institute for Scientific Information’s Web of Science database. While the paper states she searched for “climate change,” in response to criticism, Oreskes issued a formal correction that she instead searched for the keyword “global climate change.”27 She found 928 abstracts in the database. She examined each of these abstracts (not the text of the peer-reviewed paper), and categorized them into:
(1) Explicit endorsement of the anthropogenic climate change position; (2) Evaluation of impacts;
(3) Mitigation proposals;
(4) Methods;
(5) Paleoclimate analysis; and
(6) Rejection of the anthropogenic climate change position.
According to Oreskes, 75% fell into the first three categories. She does not say how many fall into category 1 and explicitly endorse the anthropogenic climate change position. The study notes “authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural.”
Oreskes’s paper is subject to 3 qualifications: (1) only examined abstracts from 1993 through 2003, (2) doesn’t say how many of these endorsed the anthropogenic climate change position, and (3) acknowledges some scientists in categories 2-5 “might believe that current climate change is natural.” Due to these qualifications, this is a very poor study for NASA to rely upon for its statement.
27 It is marked as corrected on the Science website: Naomi Oreskes, “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Science, Vol. 306, Issue 5702 (December 2004), p. 1686, https://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686, The correction is at “Corrections and Clarifications,” Science, Vol. 307, Issue 5708 (January 2005), p. 355, https://science.sciencemag.org/content/307/5708/355.
10
Because the Oreskes study excluded abstracts that did not take a position, it is subject to many of the same problems in the Cook study. It says nothing about the vast majority of scientists who do not take a position on the issue.
Conclusion
Failing to account for scientists who do not have—or have not publicly stated—a position on global warming makes the statement that “Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities,” inaccurate, unreliable, and biased.
Presenting such an inaccurate, unreliable, and biased statement is a violation of the Information Quality Act. NASA should stop distributing that statement by removing it from the NASA website. A correction, informing the public that this prior statement did not have a proper basis in fact and should not be relied upon, would also help relieve the problems caused by its prior distribution.
Sincerely,
Devin Watkins, Attorney devin.watkins@cei.org
Sam Kazman, General Counsel sam.kazman@cei.org
Competitive Enterprise Institute 1310 L Street NW, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20005
(202) 331-1010”. https://cei.org/sites/default/files/IQA_NASA_97_Percent_Final.pdf
Xx, do you really think that repeating the same bullshit ad nauseam makes it less bullshit?
I’d bet on the CEI complaint being upheld.
It is the official complaint. Would you rather be ignorant as to what it is and what it seeks?
I know.
Actually, I could do without reviewing the BS machinations of CEI.
I can fix that for you .......
Then don't.
Unlike many here, I prefer to base my comments on the facts of the topic. Hence, the necessity to READ the CEI complaint, which I did after reading the seed. Then I read the study and went to the NASA website. That lead me to the conclusion that the CEI complaint is BS.
Because of my preference for facts, many a seed here on NT has caused me to read BS machinations, none more so than those by the seeder.
Sure you do, then you deny, deflect and disagree.
D cubed is S.O.P.
Perhaps you should follow your own advice Sparty.
No one is forcing you to read my comments. In fact, there is a handy dandy ignore function which you can use every time you see me on a seed.
Please proceed.
'97 Percent Consensus' Global Warming
It's not fake news.
So, of the climate scientists who weighed in on whether their data pointed to anthropogenic climate change, 97% of them did in fact agree that man is having a measured effect on climate change. There were 8,000 other papers not included because they did not draw any conclusion either way. That is not taking a "neutral" position, it's simply not drawing a conclusion and just presenting data.
So all that needs to be corrected is the wording of NASA's statement which should rightly say that "[n]inety-seven percent of climate scientists who drew conclusion's on mans effect on climate agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
This attempt by the right to obfuscate the obvious truth shouldn't really surprise anyone anymore. They regularly defend the most corrupt ignorant self admitted sexual predator as President so trying to pretend humans aren't having an effect on the environment is just icing on their already rotted cake.
That would be a much more honest representation of reality IMO. Their "97%" wording is unfortunate and very misleading. People automatically gravitate to thinking 97 out of 100 experts in climate believe man is the only/main cause of global warming when nothing could be further from the truth.
The question in my mind isn't "if" man is causing global warming but rather "how much" man is causing it. That's likely one very large reason why so many of the papers don't draw that conclusion.
Or it could be their data was inconclusive because what they were measuring or recording wasn't something that would be able to show mans influence on the climate.
Sure, that could be it as well.
Regardless, the fact remains 97% is a misleading number when it comes to all scientists thinking man is the main cause of GW.
Since it does appear to be a clear majority, why be disingenuous about what the actual percentage is?
The fact remains that the vast majority of those working in the climate science fields who have studied the data have concluded that man is having a measurable impact on the relatively rapid changes in climate.
I agree, the debate really should be on how much mankind is effecting the climate and what are the possible reasonable remedies if any instead of this stupid back and forth as to whether we have any effect or not.
It would seem reasonable to move towards renewable energy simply because its renewable, non-renewables will eventually run out even if they weren't causing such rapid warming. And sure, the earth has experienced carbon spikes and global warming and rapid climate change before, it just usually took a super volcano or meteor impact to cause them. In our case, the majority of climate scientists agree its our rapid extraction and burning of fossil fuels combined with deforestation that have been the prime human causes. And regardless of whether it's been a small impact or a large one, eventually we will need to transition to clean energy. A few decades ago trying to convince everyone to put prohibitively expensive solar panels on your roof was not financially possible. But today those costs have been cut by 75% as new materials and new technology has created better more efficient solar systems providing us with long term reliable renewable energy for our homes. Eventually anyone not using renewables will be paying double the cost for dirty power for no reason like an idiot. Even the Coal Museum installed a solar panel system to cut operating costs, eventually even the brain dead cave men grunting about how they'd never go green will be driving an electric car and have solar panels on their roof.
Because they use that science consensus number in order to label those of us who disagree such as Heartland Institute as questionable conspiracy pseudoscience. This Competitive Enterprise Institute action will strip the pro science fascist thought police of their fig leaf rationalizing their bigotry.
I fully plan on getting a hybrid as my next car when I wear out my Sorento. Likely the plug in one that can go 50 miles or so electric and then use gas when on long trips. I can get a Kia Niro which is stylish looking like a mini sorento has some storage room seats five and can be loaded with every luxury, convenience, and safety feature available get near Prius total mileage and cost just under $30,000. I have no problem conserving gas preserving the environment in a vehicle that looks like a normal car and makes no sacrifices.
I'm all for a common sense approach to clean energy goals. I'm absolutely against crushing entire industries via over regulation and simple shut downs. Coal for example can be phased out without destroying everything and everyone involved in the industry. The government serves its constituency much better by providing incentives to move clean energy. Not ultimatums to kill dirty energy. Phasing into renewable power isn't going to happen overnight.
All the feel good nonsense about achieving 100% renewable energy quickly is just that. Nonsense. The standby power alone required to meet peak electrical demands more or less excludes that possibility until (if and when) someone perfects a quickly build-able, clean source like Cold Fusion.
Few people like AOC really understand how our electrical power grid actually works but to hear them talk they've been power generation engineers for years. Ridiculous!
Meanwhile people like Al Gore get rich off of it.
Where is the outrage over that?
IMO, those that go to the NASA website aren't easily lead astray. The NASA website links the study and quotes it as follows:
I don't know how NASA could be more transparent about the origin of the 97% statistic.
And yet those who don’t buy in to that 97% lie get their sites labeled as conspiracy pseudoscience by the true believer kool aid drinkers who enforce that dogma.
Heresy they scream, heresy. Off with our heads they cry...
Right, because THEORIES are so unreliable, like the theory of gravity.
Transparent perhaps but how is it being used? How its used by others certainly isn't NASA fault but you and i both know it's being used in the media and elsewhere in a disingenuous manner.
They (the mass media that is) want people to think that 97% of ALL scientists agree that man is the main cause of global warming when nothing could be further from the truth. No doubt about that.
For example, i could say that 97% of ALL coffee drinkers, who expressed an opinion about Starbucks coffee, agreed that it's good coffee but that doesn't mean 97% of ALL coffee drinkers think Starbucks is good coffee because not ALL of them expressed an opinion about it.
It's unfortunate wording at best and intentionally misleading at worst.
How it's being used is besides the point. CEI wants a 'correction' when no 'correction' is warranted.
Yet as I said, IMHO, those that go to NASA for information aren't pushovers. Perhaps CEI could learn to knit...make themselves useful.
It even has an indirect effect here as another place uses that so called consensus in order to label others based on it and have that labeling used by 3rd parties to content control and censor those of us who disagree. Nothing would be better than kicking that prop right out from under those bigots and I hope CEI is the tool to do it.
CEI is now my go to source here on climate change since the bigots re rated Heartland Institute wrongly.
So since 2016.
That is exactly the point. The comment is disingenuous at best. An attempt to bias public opinion in a dishonest manner. Some of us are smart enough to not be manipulated by such slight of hand and misdirection.. Some drink it greedily like the koolaide of their preferred narrative. Scarf if up, even when that koolaide is puke flavored ..... it matters not.
Okay then, and as noted earlier, the solution is simple. All NASA has to do is clarify, clearly and concisely, that 97% of ALL climate scientists DO NOT have an opinion that global warming is mostly man made. 15 seconds to write, a couple minutes to post online. Easy peezy and it goes away. If you're so confident in being correct, i fail to see what your the problem is with that.
Argument for the sake of argument perhaps? Or perhaps it damages your preferred narrative?
How can it be transparent and disingenuous at the same time?
Opponents will bastardize data no matter how accurate it is and no matter how cogently it is presented.
"Some people may not understand it" isn't a reason that merits 'correction'.
The fact that CEI is misrepresenting the study is a reason to dismiss it.
So what you are demanding is that NASA [or I in this instance] address a strawman fallacy. Why?
I've cited facts just as NASA does. CEI has the burden of proof and since they misrepresent the study, it fails miserably.
It damages my preference for FACTS.
Yeah, you just want to argue. My comment is clear, concise and speaks for itself. Not interested in endless argument with you.
[deleted, comments about members are always off-topic.]
Actually, I asked you cogent questions based on your comments. [deleted]
My comments have addressed everything you've posed as "cogent" questions. You on the other hand have answered nothing. Nah, you just want to argue like usual.
Last comment, i'm out of this goat rodeo ....
Really Sparty? Where did you 'address' this:
Or this:
You didn't.
[deleted]
We didn’t regularly defend Bill Clinton as President and we aren’t denying that humans just might have some small impact on climate change.
I've never defended Bill Clinton and never voted for him, and yes, some on the right are denying that humans have even a small impact on climate change.
At best they are willing to claim that if there is any human effect on the climate, the amount isn't just small, it's the impossible to see "unknown".
Deny, deflect, distract, delay. It's the GOP playbook for continuing to reap huge profits keeping people reliant on dirty non-renewables even though a clean alternative is already here. The Republican legislature just knows they are dealing with stubborn and poorly educated constituents who still confuse "climate" with the weather outside their own window on any given day. If we didn't have an active denial community far we wouldn't be seeing coal mining families going bankrupt and failing, we'd see them embracing the new technologies and getting trained as a solar or wind turbine technician, or perhaps even branching out into the more technical computer engineering fields. But as it is with the constant misinformation campaign sold to them by the fossil fuel industry who has EVERY reason to lie to them and their families about the efficacy of fossil fuels, the Midwest and south where coal and big oil keep them in a choke hold, we may never get these bloodsucking vampires off Americas neck. We give $649 BILLION in oil and coal subsidies in 2015 while at the same time spent just $65 billion nationally on food stamps and just $599 billion on OUR ENTIRE MILITARY. That's right, the annual oil and coal subsidies EXCEED our annual military spending.
I'm not calling for some war on oil and coal, I just don't think we need to be supporting their dirty businesses with our tax dollars. The tax dollars, if any need to be spent supporting an industry, should be spent on getting us into the future, not sucking the dirty balls of the past.
And those who didn’t weigh in yet because there wasn’t enough reliable data to take one side or the other as to it being majority man caused are to be ignored or discarded or outside of the scientific consensus mainstream?
The "97% of Scientists say manmade global warming is settled science" is a MYTH
The myth of "settled science" which is a non scientific term
Settled Science? No Such Thing
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SETTLED SCIENCE
By Professor Steven Yates
November 7, 2015
NewsWithViews.com
The 97% myth
There's just lots of unsettling science. Unsettling for those who work for or continue to believe the dirty fossil fuel industry that doesn't give a crap about the planet but only cares for their shareholder profits. The real myth is that the fossil fuel industry has anyone's best interest at heart but their own.
"Last week, State Impact Oklahoma and the Center for Public Integrity co-published a report detailing how Oil Overlords have injected $40-million worth of pro-industry propaganda into Oklahoma classroom shales.
Apparently, it’s all part of an effort to indoctrinate… errr… educate our state’s youth about the wonders of petroleum, and all the great things it’s done for human civilization (minus the pollution, environmental destruction, and war)."
Dressed in suits, the Republican lawmakers read aloud from “Petro Pete’s Big Bad Dream,” a parable in which a Bob the Builder lookalike awakens to find his toothbrush, hardhat and even the tires on his bike missing. Abandoned by the school bus, Pete walks to Petroville Elementary in his pajamas.
“It sounds like you are missing all of your petroleum by-products today!” his teacher, Mrs. Rigwell, exclaims, extolling oil’s benefits to Pete and fellow students like Sammy Shale. Before long, Pete decides that “having no petroleum is like a nightmare!”
It really is amazing how fornicatingly stupid some folk are in America, but I suppose if you really want to bamboozle them you have to start young. It's truly sad to realize that likely millions of children are being subjected to vile religious and oil indoctrination throughout the Midwest and south. How can anyone imagine these kids will turn out sane after that. No wonder we have so many right wing terrorists popping up all over America.
A huge sweeping generalization as well.
the concept of settled science is one for the intellectually stupid among us.
The concept of “settled science” is a sacred cow that can not be criticized or exposed to the ridicule it richly deserves.
Wait...so God is real, not one shred of scientific proof at all...but man made global warming of which there are tons of scientific evidence, is a myth?
You have got to be fucking kidding me.
Tons that the Climate is Changing anyway !
That's a no-brainer and doesn't require a STUDY. We all know the Climate Changes on this planet, and it's been doing so even before man got smart !
Try reading my comment again. SMH.
You need a study to look out the window to see if it's raining a lot or not for you ?
You need a study to tell you what the thermometer says outside ?
You need a new study, that shows that Climate really has changed over quite a few millenniums, and that it WILL change again ?
I did....
You "Think?" yet spout Bunches of meaningless words, with not much about pulling ones own Head out of the sand !
Quit personally attacking other members on my seed. Be civil or be somewhere else.
The Heartland Institute is my go to for all evidence regarding any man cause role in climate change. It is right on.
My go to source for information on climate change is the American Dental Association; I mean, why not, they have no degrees in the climate sciences either, but at least they help keep my teeth in good condition.
The seeded article clearly state that they used the papers which took a position on anthropogenic climate change and used them to calculate the 97% number. Well, duh, why would you use the other papers that weren’t taking a position on the subject?
The article then goes on to destroy its own case. The first complainer is an economist. An economist would produce papers on the costs of climate change and/or the costs of its mitigation. Even if he took a position on anthropogenic climate change, how would economics produce evidence for/against it?.
The second complainer is a physicist, again not a climatologist. Nir Shaviv is also a physicist. The link lists handful of people, against the thousands of scientists with various degrees in the climate sciences. These deniers aren't going to meaningfully affect the percentage. In fact, if you look at papers from the last 5 years or so, the number for ACC is above 99% because both the data and models are better now.
Yes, people are too stupid to realize that the 64% of papers that took no position on anthropogenic climate change took no position. This is not the same as saying they don't know. Climatologists research modeling, noise elimination, air/water flows, ...; lots of things that are used to test theories, so a position on ACC would be a non-sequitur. E.g. Here's a method of removing noise from our calculations, and I don't believe in ACC.
This is a meritless lawsuit whose purpose is to create mistrust in science. This nonsense started with a group of conservatives producing garbage ‘showing’ that tobacco wasn’t causing cancer from the 50s into the 90s, when the tobacco companies knew it was in the early 50s. The same group of people produced garbage to protect companies responsible for acid rain. And, they produced still more garbage with respect to DDT. All this garbage was eventually disposed of and the scientists heeded. But, these people realized that they could create mistrust of science by constantly producing garbage. That is why the crap disseminators switched to attacking science directly. Lots of people are stupid, so this works. Now they don’t have to deal with reality directly.
The Heartland Institute does a lot of work on climate change and global warming issues and has access to qualified scientists and research. They are also leading an effort to get President Trump to create a presidential commission on climate change with leading experts in the sciences to formally investigate and reach conclusions. I will be willing to abide by whatever decision they come to after extensive study of the matter.
The Heartland Institute was one of the smoking causes cancer deniers. You can read one article about them on this subject here:
Google will give you lots of others.
I’m aware of the stupidity from your source. They recently re rated as they often do to conservatives and Christians sites. Getting that rating from them is a badge of honor.
LOL. I Googled heartland institute and acid rain as well as DDT. In addition to peddling the tobacco industry line about cigarettes and cancer, they also peddled the industry line on acid rain and DDT. Tobacco causing cancer, SO2 causing acid rain, and DDT damaging the environment are now settled science, as they were at the time the Heartland Institute 'scientists' were shilling for the various industries.
EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
HEARTLAND INSTITUTE
Freedom Rising
+ RESULTS
Mission
The Heartland Institute is a national nonprofit organization founded in 1984 and devoted to research and education. Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Such solutions include parental choice in education, 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.
Ruling Year
1984
CEO
Mr. Joseph L. Bast Ph.D.
Main Address
3939 North Wilke Road
Arlington Heights, IL 60004 USA
Show More ContactsKeywords
budget, climate change, digital economy, education, environment, free market, freedom, global warming, government, health care, information technology, junk science, lawsuit abuse, libertarian, multicultural, private property, privatization, public policy, school reform, second hand smoke, smoker, smoking, sound science, taxes, tax reform, think tank, tobacco, tort reform, welfare
EIN
36-3309812
2739561657
Cause Area (NTEE Code)
Research Institutes and/or Public Policy Analysis (B05)
Research Institutes and/or Public Policy Analysis (P05)
Research Institutes and/or Public Policy Analysis (W05)
IRS Filing Requirement
This organization is required to file an IRS Form 990 or 990-EZ.
Sign in or create an account to view Form(s) 990 for 2017, 2016 and 2015.Register now
Social Media
PROGRAMS + RESULTS
What we aim to solve New!
Add a problem overview to your profile.
Update nowOur programs
What are the organization's current programs, how do they measure success, and who do the programs serve?
SOURCE: Self-reported by organization
Programs Overview
The Heartland Institute publishes four national monthly newspapers covering free-market ideas in school reform, environmental protection, health care finance, and tax and budget matters. Heartland also publishes three policy newsletters, addressing the digital economy; lawsuit abuse; and public policy from a free-market multicultural perspective. It also publishes a members' newsletter. Heartland has a substantial presence on the Internet (http://www.heartland.org), including PolicyBot -- the Internet's largest collection of free-market public policy research. Eight Heartland Senior Fellows travel the country giving speeches to audiences of all sizes. Heartland also publishes occasional books and policy studies and hosts seminars and other events.
Population(s) Served
Adults
Budget
$6,425,416
Where we workNew!
Our Results
How does this organization measure their results? It's a hard question but an important one. These quantitative program results are self-reported by the organization, illustrating their committment to transparency, learning, and interest in helping the whole sector learn and grow.
SOURCE: Self-reported by organization
Educational Contacts with Elected Officials
General/Unspecified
Programs Overview
Number of contacts made by Heartland Institute staff with elected officials during 2017.
Number of public events held to further mission
General/Unspecified
Programs Overview
The Heartland Institute’s communications and marketing teams host monthly events in the Andrew Breitbart Freedom Center, in Arlington Heights, Illinois.
Number of affiliates speaking at conferences
General/Unspecified
Programs Overview
The Heartland Institute has approximately 500 academics and professional economists who serve as Policy Advisors, 33 senior fellows.
Number of volunteers
General/Unspecified
Programs Overview
The Heartland Institute currently has three volunteers that devotes free time to advancing the cause of liberty.
Number of programs documented
General/Unspecified
Programs Overview
The Heartland Institute produces five centers that conducts original research to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems.
Number of testimonies offered
General/Unspecified
Programs Overview
Heartland experts testified 18 times in 13 states in 2017.
Number of policy guidelines or proposals developed
General/Unspecified
Programs Overview
Number of overall donors
General/Unspecified
Programs Overview
The Heartland Institute is approximately 5,500 men and women, who are concerned about attacks on freedom in America. Heartland has a long and distinguished history of defending freedom since 1984.
Number of website pageviews
General/Unspecified
Programs Overview
Heartland hosts more than a dozen websites delivering news,commentary, videos, podcasts,memes, and more to advance free markets and individual liberty.
Number of new website visitors
General/Unspecified
Programs Overview
Heartland hosts more than a dozen websites delivering news,commentary, videos, podcasts,memes, and more to advance free markets and individual liberty.
Number of Facebook followers
General/Unspecified
Programs Overview
Heartland’s social media presence is robust. Our Facebook page has more than 100,000 fans and Heartland’s posts are engaged some five million times a year.
Total dollars received in contributions
General/Unspecified
Programs Overview
Our 2017 income came from the following sources: foundations 22%; individuals 70%;businesses 6%; other 2%. It receives no funds from any government at any level.
Charting Impact
Five powerful questions that require reflection about what really matters - results.
SOURCE: Self-reported by organization
What is the organization aiming to accomplish?
What are the organization's key strategies for making this happen?
What are the organization's capabilities for doing this?
How will they know if they are making progress?
What have they accomplished so far and what's next?
External Reviews
"They are expert, smart, tireless and indefatigable.
READ MORE >>https://www.guidestar.org/profile/36-3309812In the face of massive monied Leftist opposition - they remain strong...and always correct. ...
Heartland Institute
Rating: 4.81 stars 148 reviews
3939 North Wilke Road Arlington Heights IL 60004 USA
More Info
https://greatnonprofits.org/whitelabel/reviews/heartland-institute Reviews for Heartland Institute
They are expert, smart, tireless and indefatigable.
In the face of massive monied Leftist opposition - they remain strong...and always correct.
Fortunately Heartland Institute is influential enough and well trusted among enough organizations it’s easy to get their material out via other conservative media not yet labeled.