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'
Who is online
31 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 .”
Very compelling.
It will be interesting to see how NASA responds.
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.
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.
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:
'97 Percent Consensus' Global Warming
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 ( ), 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 work New!
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 >>In 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
Reviews for Heartland Institute
They are expert, smart, tireless and indefatigable.
In the face of massive monied Leftist opp osition - 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.