Richard Littlemore reports:

Dozens of scientists are demanding that their names be removed from a widely distributed Heartland Institute article entitled 500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares. …

DeSmogBlog manager Kevin Grandia emailed 122 of the scientists yesterday afternoon, calling their attention to the list. So far – in less than 24 hours – three dozen of those scientists had responded in outrage, denying that their research supports Avery’s conclusions and demanding that their names be removed.

Click on the link to see some of the responses.

I predict that Avery will maintain that all the scientists are wrong about their own work and refuse to remove any names from the list.

Comments

  1. #1 sod
    April 29, 2008

    wow

    Co-Authors: Alphabetical List

    that is tough. pretty shockjing to find your name on this list of total nonsense..

  2. #2 David Kane's friend
    April 29, 2008

    What sod said. Just when I thought I’d seen it all.

    Did the folks at the Heartland Institute think that anyone, anyone at all, would be fooled by them calling these 500 scientists “co-authors”? Wait, don’t answer that.

  3. #3 David Kane's friend
    April 29, 2008

    It’s also kind of amusing that the “full text” allegedly corresponding to the abstract is just a list of (people who are allegedly) co-authors. The skeptics seem to be having a hard time even pretending to take themselves seriously.

  4. #4 SteveF
    April 29, 2008

    Funnily enough, 3 of the 5 (Sugden, Bjork, Clague) in the featured quotes are Quaternary people. It’s an attack on people in my field!

  5. #5 Hugh
    April 29, 2008

    Rahmstorf, Stefan, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany

    You have got to be kidding…right??

  6. #6 sod
    April 29, 2008

    i hope this turns out to be a joke of some sort…

  7. #7 Eli Rabett
    April 29, 2008

    The interesting thing is that by calling them co-authors Heartland may have given them grounds to sue for defamation. Do I hear volunteer lawyers calling?

  8. #8 David Kane's friend
    April 29, 2008

    There’s a lot of competition for the dumbest part of the statement, but I think this one takes the cake:

    Wild species are not being driven to extinction but rather are increasing the biodiversity of our wildlands;

    “[I]ncreasing … biodiversity”? Who are they kidding? I thought the standard wingnut lines on species extinctions were either that who cares and/or the rate of extinction is being exaggerated. But what are they claiming here? That speciation is going on at a faster rate than extinction? Once again I have to wonder who they think is going to buy that. At least it would mean they’re not creationists, I suppose.

  9. #9 Atmoz
    April 29, 2008

    You have got to be kidding…right??

    The list also contains Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, Stefan Rahmstorf, and Thibault de Garidel – all contributors to RealClimate. And Jonathon Overpeck, an author of the latest IPCC. I’m sure I’m missing some other obvious names, but that was just from a quick skim.

  10. #10 David Kane's friend
    April 29, 2008

    I see Steve McIntyre is on the list. Is he considered a “scientist” and “qualified researcher[]” with “research in professional journals”? According to his Wikipedia article, his highest science degree is a BSc in math.

  11. #11 Clark
    April 29, 2008

    Is this the same list that is on the congressional Republican blog that has been so widely dispersed? If not, can someone please comment on that one. It’s been making the rounds among all my friends and it’s annoying the heck out of me.

  12. #12 luminous beauty
    April 29, 2008

    Mann, Michael E., University of Massachusetts

    Schmidt, Gavin J., University of Virginia

    Thompson, L.G., Ohio State

    …a joke of some sort.

  13. #13 Clark
    April 29, 2008

    BTW this is the list I was thinking of.

  14. #14 Boris
    April 29, 2008

    Clark,

    Click on Eli Rabett’s name above and search his blog for coverage of the Inhofe 400.

  15. #15 Gavin
    April 29, 2008

    #11 – Actually, I have no idea who “Gavin J. Schmidt” is (my middle initial is ‘A’) and I have never worked at UVa. If someone has the book at hand, maybe you could see if this is a real citation of someone else, or just a (unsurprising) sign of incompetence?

  16. #16 Woody Tanaka
    April 29, 2008

    More evidence that the global warming denialists are kissing cousins to the creationists… Climate-Change-‘Steve’-List anyone???

  17. #17 luminous beauty
    April 29, 2008

    Co-authors Val LaMarche and Don Graybill: Ghost-writers.

    Why isn’t Roger Revelle in there?

  18. #18 Jon
    April 29, 2008

    More evidence that the global warming denialists are kissing cousins to the creationists… Climate-Change-‘Steve’-List anyone???

    That rings a bell, WT.

  19. #19 Clark
    April 29, 2008

    Thanks Boris. I did some link following and found the following Dot Earth discussion which was very helpful. Others might enjoy reading it.

  20. #20 IanR
    April 29, 2008

    This partial listing is derived primarily from the citations in our book, Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years.

    It sounds to me like these are all the people whose work they cited to support one or another of their arguments in that book.

  21. #21 John Mashey
    April 29, 2008

    It is especially interesting to see Hans Oeschger listed, along with two others who are deceased, for a total of three, one more than the number of deceased faculty listed at OISM.

  22. #22 Dano
    April 29, 2008

    I hereby declare the 621 authors listed in the citations in The Skeptical Environmentalist as people who oppose alarmism and who think that things are getting better.

    Best,

    D

  23. #23 Atmoz
    April 29, 2008

    #14:
    There is an student named Gavin W. Schmidt at UVa who recently did a term presentation and report titled ‘Using Change in NDVI Values Over Time as an Indicator of Ecological Resilience of the VA Eastern Shore’. The co-author on the report is not in the list of 500. Nor is there another Gavin Schmidt at UVa according to their directory.

  24. #24 Michael Tobis
    April 29, 2008

    All 30 or so of the COHMAP authors, how convenient. I believe that was a paleo reconstruction project expressing no opinions about anything except the climate of 6K, 12K and 18K.

    Makes sense. If you’re going to steal names, best to do it wholesale.

    So. The asy way to get hundreds of people to agree with you:

    Cite a dozen papers with a couple dozen of authors each; they must agree because otherwise you wouldn’t have cited ‘em, now would you?

  25. #25 Joe
    April 29, 2008

    Also deceased is Gerard Bond of LDEO.

  26. #26 Atmoz
    April 29, 2008

    #14,22
    There are no citations in An Unstoppable Global Warming with a Schmidt as first author. The only obvious citation was to Rind et al., where Gavin is a coauthor. Rind is in the list of 500, but the other 5 coauthors are not.

  27. #27 bi -- Intl. J. Inact.
    April 29, 2008

    Lambert:

    I predict that Avery will maintain that all the scientists are wrong about their own work and refuse to remove any names from the list.

    Obviously, they’ve all been threatened with unnameable punishments by invisible Bolshevist agents. What more `explanation’ do they need? If you come up speaking for the AGW theory, you’re either a murderous dictator wannabe, or you’ve been coerced by murderous dictator wannabes, or you’re hysterical, and it’s all a totally invisible Vast Conspiracy…

    …until someone detects it by using crossword-puzzle methodologies or by studying hammer-and-sickle patterns formed on cereal flakes.

    = = =

    By the way, has anyone done any sort of map showing the geographical distribution of the self-professed hardline inactivists — say, the speakers at the Heartland Conference? My suspicion is that the inactivists will be more concentrated in English-speaking regions, while mainstream climatologists are more evenly distributed across the globe.

  28. #28 szqc
    April 29, 2008

    Per other commenters searching for Gavin’s Doppelganger, I suspect incompetence or malfeasance.

    I know two GJ Schmidts – neither are “Gavin” – and while both are excellent researchers like Gavin Schimdt, one is a botanist like me and the other I know from development of chromatography research. Neither is from VA.

    Per others above, I can’t find much beyond the one GW Schmidt at VA who, again, did great work on NDVI and other systems engineering but makes no claims on climate change.

    I do see the occasional “j” crop up after Gavin’s proper name in the midst of Mann-Virginia-Schmidt-NASA google searches (its “j” as in “journal” of something).

    This is a pretty convoluted hypothesis so more parisomnious: they made up a middle initial along with most everything else in that list.

  29. #29 Chris Noble
    April 29, 2008

    The same thing happened when I emailed some people who were listed on the list of scientists who doubt that HIV causes AIDS.

    They were unaware that they were on the list and were horrified to find out that their research was being misrepresented.

    It’s straight out of chapter 3 in ” The Idiot’s Guide to Denialism”.

  30. #30 cindy
    April 30, 2008

    re: NZ scientists listed. Half of them apparently work for the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. The DSIR ceased to exist 20 years ago. So are they quoting 20 year old research? Another hasn’t worked at Canterbury University for 25 years. Two have retired and two others are extremely upset at their names being included.

  31. #31 san quintin
    April 30, 2008

    HH Lamb is also deceased. They’ve also got Ruddiman on the list! Unbelievable.

  32. #32 Bernard J.
    April 30, 2008

    I am still agog over the sheer temerity of the distortions and the downright lies contained within the seven points listed in the Heartland abstract, so I will postpone any comment on these for now.

    However, I can’t help but think that the Heartland Institute may definitely have gone a bridge too far. If there are not genuine litigation bases here I’d be most surprised, and this might be the straw to break the denialists’ camel’s back. I reckon the Institute’s legal squad were asleep on this one!

    If there are any canny journalists (or lawyers?) about they will sink their teeth deeply into this, as it shows beyond doubt the tactics that have been used by the denialst movement to forestall action to mitigate climate change.

    I’d be interested to hear what the denialist blogosphere is chattering about with respect to this. As one person alone can’t really stretch themselves to cover the gamut, perhaps the die-hards here who visit the various swamps might care to give us the gist?

    So much more to mutter, but for now I might just vomit a little bit in my mouth – again…

  33. #33 Barton Paul Levenson
    April 30, 2008

    Incidentally, Tim, thanks for keeping this blog going. Deltoid is a fascinating place. It may be my favorite climate blog at this time, even over RealClimate (and I really like RealClimate!) May I add a link to Deltoid to my web site?

  34. #34 kent
    April 30, 2008

    So It has finally been noted by NASA that the PDO has switched into a negative phase. It looked like it happened some time ago but it must have stuck in their collective craws to have to admit it. Quess they hopped it would just go away but it wouldn’t. Could the recent upwelling of cooler water off the coast of Peru be indicative of yet another La Nina? Speculative, yes but with the PDO switch it is entirely possible.

  35. #35 bi -- Intl. J. Inact.
    April 30, 2008

    Bernard J.:

    Here’s the response I’m seeing from the inactionosphere on Heartland’s latest move:

    Jennifer Marohasy: …
    Anthony Watts: …
    Our resident kent: …
    DeSmogBlog’s resident trolls: …

    Thanks to Littlemore’s quick response which made this possible! :)

  36. #36 Lance
    April 30, 2008

    Well I went to the Heartland Institute’s website and found these statements regarding the “list”.

    “A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares.”

    “Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics,” said Avery, “but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see.”

    “The names were compiled by Avery and climate physicist S. Fred Singer, the co-authors of the new book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, mainly from the peer-reviewed studies cited in their book.”

    So it would seem that they claim only that these scientists have presented some evidence that would refute “at least one element of current man-made global warming scares”.

    While their claim is of dubious significance (what exactly is an “element” of a claim of a “scare” as far as scientific studies are concerned?) the hyperbolic fits of the posters here seem a bit histrionic. How exactly do you sue someone over their opinion of a scientific paper? They never say that the authors of these papers endorse their interpretation, in fact they state that the opposite may be true.

    As far as the authors of the cited papers being “outraged”, Singer and the Heartland Institute have every right to state their interpretation of the studies and the authors are free to state that this interpretation is incorrect.

    All the noise and fury here at Deltoid is just so much posturing and puffing for the benefit of fellow warmists.

  37. #37 sod
    April 30, 2008

    As far as the authors of the cited papers being “outraged”, Singer and the Heartland Institute have every right to state their interpretation of the studies and the authors are free to state that this interpretation is incorrect.

    let me get this straigth:

    so i can anme EVERY person a coauthor of what ever nonsense i write?
    just because I THINK, that some part of his/her work supports some part of my work?

    what are you drinking?

  38. #38 sod
    April 30, 2008

    perhaps someone around here could provide a beginner course in scientif citations to Lance? he seems to have an obscure undersatnding of how to represent other peoples opinion in his papers…

    ps: here is his source for the text parts above:

    http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/09-12-2007/0004661425&EDATE

  39. #39 sod
    April 30, 2008

    sorry for the typos, but i am in a hurry.

    have to publish my paper on errors in Iraq, coauthored by John McCain and Dick Cheney…

    my friend lance has agreed to handle all legal problems that might come up…

  40. #40 Boris
    April 30, 2008

    I’m glad to see that Lance finally admits that global warming is happening and that it is caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Finally, Lance concedes that the computer models are valuable tools and he accepts the climate sensitivity of 3`C. It’s about time you admitted you were wrong, Lance. But credit where credit is due. Glad to see you admitting you were wrong. I respect that.

  41. #41 bi -- Intl. J. Inact.
    April 30, 2008

    Ah, finally someone decides to defend Heartland’s latest statement.

    Now, my dear friends, notice that the PR Newswire report was from … let’s see … 12 Sep 2007, and Avery’s statement at that time was made under the name of the Hudson Institute. Nothing to do with the new hardline statements made by Avery in the name of the Heartland Institute.

    It’s too bad Lance can’t ward off the impending lawsuits with his ostrich tactics.

    = = =

    And guess what, someone just brought out the Totally Invisible Warmist Conspiracy theory. Score a third victory for yours truly the junior Goracle, bwahahahahaha.

  42. #42 Lance
    April 30, 2008

    Sod,

    I said that their claims were “dubious”. The wording makes it clear however that this is there own analysis of various papers in regard to “elements” of global warming “scare” claims. They do not, as you assert, claim that these scientists have “coauthored” their work.

    Besides making faces and rude noises do you have anything that challenges my actual points?

    Boris,

    Your point would be better made by selectively quoting past statements I have made out of context. This would be more like what Singer and company have done in their “list”. I could then respond by reiterating the original context of my statements and then comment on your misusage. I would not have legitimate recourse to sue you however.

    What Heartland has done is no more dishonest than what Environmental Defense, the NRDC, and other environmental activist organizations do on a regular basis. Admittedly this is hardly an endorsement of these types of propaganda stunts but it is the reality of the current political fight being waged over AGW.

  43. #43 bi -- Intl. J. Inact.
    April 30, 2008

    Lance, keep the smoke bombs coming, they’re entertaining. You’re trying to distract attention by talking about a different statement that was made in September 2007.

    And we know. We’re not stupid.

  44. #44 sod
    April 30, 2008

    They do not, as you assert, claim that these scientists have “coauthored” their work.

    they did not?

    Co-Authors: Alphabetical List
    Abbot, M.L., USGS
    Aceves, Heather L., University of South Carolina
    Aeschlimann, Beat, ETH, Zurich, Switzerland

    http://www.heartland.org/pdf/21978.pdf

    stupid me!

  45. #45 Bernard J.
    April 30, 2008

    Lance.

    Note that in the way that Avery and the Heartland Institute phrase their claim:

    “The following list includes more than 500 qualified researchers whose research in professional journals provides historic and/or physical proxy evidence that:

    they appear to be saying that the listed work of these ‘500’ scientists supports all of the numbered points that follow – at least, that is my best interpretation of it, and I am sure that many other readers would interpret this similarly.

    Do you seriously claim that Avery is thus not misrepresenting the work of many of these ‘500’ scientists?

    Do you seriously claim that these same offended scientists’ papers, in each and every case, actually does demonstrate even one, let alone more, of the Heartland Institute’s points as numbered:

    1) Most of the recent global warming has been caused by a long, moderate, natural cycle rather than by the burning of fossil fuels;

    2) The sun’s varying radiance impacts the Earth’s climate as more or fewer cosmic rays create more or fewer of the low, wet clouds that act as the Earth’s thermostats, deflecting more or less solar heat out into space.

    3) Sea levels are not rising rapidly nor are they likely to;

    4) Wild species are not being driven to extinction but rather are increasing the biodiversity of our wildlands;

    5) Fewer human deaths are likely rather than more as the current warming continues, since cold is far more dangerous and the Earth is always warming or cooling;

    6) Food production is likely to thrive during the decades ahead, rather than collapsing due to climate overheating;

    7) Our storms are likely to be fewer and milder as the declining temperature differential between the equator and the poles reduces their power.

    Are you prepared to contact each of the scientists who have protested about Avery’s misuse of their work, and explain to them that they in fact have no grounds for complaint? If you truly support your position at #36 you would do this, because these scientists are no different to the ‘posturing and puffing’ folk here on Deltoid whom you so disparage.

    Perhaps, if you are too scared to do so, you would like someone from this thread to perform this favour for you, in your name?

    You say:

    So it would seem that they claim only that these scientists have presented some evidence that would refute “at least one element of current man-made global warming scares”.

    If the offended scientists disagree with you on this point, would you challenge them in court to defend your (and Avery’s) statement?

    Just how far are you prepared to go to maintain that Avery and the Heartland Institute are not misrepresenting many of these scientists’ work?

  46. #46 bi -- Intl. J. Inact.
    April 30, 2008

    Second sighting of the idiotic conspiracy theory. Unfortunately, I think that still counts as only one as far as Goracular predictions are concerned.

  47. #47 dhogaza
    April 30, 2008

    What Heartland has done is no more dishonest than what Environmental Defense, the NRDC, and other environmental activist organizations do on a regular basis.

    Really? Provide cites, please, to where these conservation organizations misprepresent the views of scientists they quote, and please provide enough cites to support your claim that they do so on a “regular basis”.

    You lying sack of shit.

  48. #48 bi -- Intl. J. Inact.
    April 30, 2008

    No dhogaza, I respectfully disagree. A sack of shite can’t throw smoke bombs. :)

  49. #49 Lance
    April 30, 2008

    sod,

    You were right, I was wrong. The heartland Institute does list those scientists as coauthors. This is dishonest, my apologies. I was basing my remarks on the information at their website and did not see the page with the “coauthors” listed.

    Bernard J.,

    Phrasing a claim is one thing listing scientists as coauthors is another.

    dhogaza,

    I look forward to meeting you some day. In person.

  50. #50 dhogaza
    April 30, 2008

    You were right, I was wrong. The heartland Institute does list those scientists as coauthors. This is dishonest, my apologies.

    Progress!

  51. #51 z
    April 30, 2008

    i have gone over the works of newton, leibnitz, darwin, freud, einstein, feynmann, tesla and davinci, and found none of them predicting AGW or in any way expressing even the slightest agreement with the theory. I think that should tell you just where the greatst scientific minds stand on the theory.

  52. #52 z
    April 30, 2008

    don’t forget the inhofe effect; scientists will want to have their names taken off the list of those who oppose AGW theory, because they are AFRAID of the AGW conspiracy.

  53. The inactivist blogs still aren’t talking about the list, for whatever reasons.

  54. #54 z
    May 2, 2008

    This really pisses me off. what, I’m not good enough for the heartland institute to put me down as an opponent of AGW? my opinion isn’t worth falsifying? boy.

  55. #55 Joel Shore
    May 2, 2008

    By the way, when this list originally came out last year under the Hudson Institute affiliation of Avery, I did manage to find a list of the actual papers that they were claiming supported their ideas. Here is the link: http://hudson.org/files/pdf_upload/9-07%20Avery%20Global%20Warming.pdf

    I commented on a few of the papers that I decided to track down in posts #54 and 59 in this thread on the StraightDope messageboard: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=436265&page=2&pp=50

    Needless to say, their inclusion criteria are bizarre. For example, Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt made the list because of a paper entitled “Solar Forcing of Regional Climate Change during the Maunder Minimum”. So apparently, a study that claims that a decrease in solar irradiance was the cause of the colder global temperatures (and even more notably, regional climate shifts) in the 1600s is evidence against AGW. Strangely enough, this study relied heavily on the very climate models that the AGW skeptics critique.

  56. It’s now on Gristmill too! Commenter SKenzie asks,

    Where are [Gristmill trolls] Manacker, Black Wallaby, or Jabaillo when we need them? I usually wish they would just shut up and go away, but I think it might be interesting to hear their take on this.

  57. Still nothing on the Heartland list from the Inactivist Media…

  58. The silence on the “Heartland 500″ list from the inactivist blogosphere and the mainstream media continues to be un-deafening…

    …though the New Zealand Flat Earth Society has weighed in on it.

  59. Guess what… the Heartland Institute decided to make a *ahem* correction to its 14 Sep 2007 press release.

    Story over at my blog. :)

  60. Heartland has replied.

    Tim Lambert, you can now rightfully claim to be another junior Goracle. :)

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.