2012-02-16 15:55:51DenialGate Highlights Heartland's Selective NIPCC Science
Dana Nuccitelli

Post looking at the difference between the IPCC and NIPCC.

DenialGate Highlights Heartland's Selective NIPCC Science

2012-02-16 21:57:29


- Should emphasize that the budget figures come from parts of the papers that have not been disavowed by HI

- You refer to "Skeptica Science" somewhere: Spelling

- You refer to the Himalayan date error; it would be more transparent to describe it as a typographicai error of writing 2035 instead of 2350 (or whatever it was)

2012-02-16 22:09:53
Mark Richardson

'climate science denying' or 'science denying' in first paragraph. 'Climate denying' leaves you open to ridicule.



You say:

"As such, we felt this would be a good time to take another look at one of the scientific products of the Heartland Institute"

Is it a scientific product? It's more a marketing product isn't it? Let's see what a $1 million science-themed marketing product does...


In your brackets about SkS being pro-bono, I'd simplify it to 'SkS authors also write pro-bono' without mentioning the conspiracy theory unless you can link to a blog or news site where that accusation is made.

2012-02-16 22:53:29


Note: this is the same reason why so many people donate their efforts to Skeptical Science, despite tinfoil hat climate denialist conspiracy theories that our website is secretly funded by billionare Nazi conspirators)

skeptica + L

secretly funded by billionare Nazi conspirators

link to comment or, better yet, show a screenshot from WUWT.


try and poke holes in the IPCC report (unsuccesfully,as we will se below).

unsuccessfully, as we will see below).


The difference between the two groups could not be clearer.

The difference between the two groups could not be more clear.

I'm not being pedantic here:  'more clear' has greater force then 'clearer'. (It's a cognitive sciencey psychology thingy.)  ;-)

2012-02-16 23:46:21Excellent framing, Dana
John Cook

Typo in 1st para: tatics -> tactics

Jg's hourglass after 1st para? Or save it for its own post?

How about linking "so many people donate their efforts..." to the team page. Why not link the nazi conspiracy theory to the source. If you don't satisfy everyone's curiosity about that bombshell, that's all they'll obsess about in the comments.

Typo in "unsuccesfully, as we will se below"

2012-02-17 00:44:44
John Cook

Neal, the himalaya error was not just typographical - not wise to downplay it. It was a comedy of errors, what happens when you don't rely on peer review.

Okay, who exactly is the Nazi funding SkS?

2012-02-17 01:09:57


I would leave out the:

(Note... ...Nazi conspirators)

Because this post is not about Skeptical Science and why hint at some conspiracy theory about SkS, when you can leave it out.... and remember The Debunking Handbook ;o)

Other than that - thumbs up :)

2012-02-17 01:55:23
John Hartz
John Hartz


Be sure to read Revkin's email exchange with Idso before finalizing this post. the exchange is embedded in Revkin's DOT Earth post, "The Heartland Files and the Climate Fight".


2012-02-17 03:08:33
Dana Nuccitelli

Hah John, in my email reply to you I suggested putting jg's graphic in the exact same spot.  Once again we think alike :-)

I could swear I linked the Nazi WUWT comment.  Maybe in adding the rel=nofollow I screwed up the HTML.  I'll make sure that's in there, and fix the other typos you guys caught.  Thanks.  Let me know if there are any other comments, would like to get this up relatively soon.

2012-02-17 05:57:05
Andy S


Very good.

Typo "billionare" [billionaire] Who is presumably George Soros, a teenage Hungarian Jew during the Nazi occupation of Hungary.

You might also add that the review process of the IPCC reports are open to everyone, "skeptics" included, whereas the NIPCC report writing process is done in private and is closed to reviewers who work within the scientific mainstream. [It could be argued that SkS works in a similar way, but all of our articles are open to public comments and we correct any errors as soon as they are pointed out.]

2012-02-17 06:03:10
Paul D


I oppose the use of the graphic and numbers. It detracts from the posts purpose IMO and the graphic is risky at this point in time.

2012-02-17 11:42:29Okay, saw the Nazi original text. Wow!
John Cook

Phil Clarke says:

An anonymous multmillionaire is funding the suppression of science teaching in your country. How is this not headline news?

[Reply: a well known billionaire is funding the pseudo science blog sceptical science. That billionaire is a multiple convicted felon who worked willingly for the Nazis in WWII. How is that not headline news? -mod]

So WUWT are asserting that SkS is funded by a Nazi-collaborating billionaire felon. I'm gobsmacked.

Prediction - that comment will disappear after we link to it. How do you archive these things? Can someone make sure that comment is archived before Dana publishes this post?

2012-02-17 12:29:31
Dana Nuccitelli

John, in Gen Chat a couple people have posted screenshots of the comment.  If they take it down, I can replace the link with one to a screenshot.

2012-02-17 14:30:07Dana, FYI, Mark Boslough asks Fred Singer about Heartland funding:
John Cook


Mark's question:

When walter introduced you he mentioned that you received money from the Heartland Institute.  I think he got that off of Wikipedia and I saw you shake your head "no" when he said that.   You may be aware that in the news in the last couple days there's a story that some documents were leaked allegedly from the Heartland Institute. And one of those says that you get $5000 a month from them.  Is that true?

Fred Singer's response:

I read the story this morning on the internet.  My understanding is that someone, we don't know who, impersonating himself as a board member of the Heartland Institute called them and pursuaded a secretary to mail him these documents.  That's a criminal act.  The police and FBI (garbled).  Maybe if they find him he may go to jail.  But I want to answer you question.  The answer is yes.  (garbled)  I don't ask them. They give money not to me.  Not to me, I get nothing.  But to the Science and Environmental Policy Project.   An what do we do with this money?  Well we in turn hire students whose job it is to review current papers in the literature and these are reviewed and get published in the NIPCC reports. So its a simple transaction.  We don't gain anything from it, except satisfaction.

So apparently Singer's $5000/month goes to students to review climate papers. Considering all the papers they've missed that you document in this blog post, Heartland aren't getting their money's worth (I kid, I'm sure they're very happy with the value for money they're getting).

2012-02-17 14:47:20
Dana Nuccitelli

They must be hiring some high school students for the quality of the report!