The Heartland Institute

I was delighted to see The Heartland Institute featuring a summation of my climate science event held here in Brussels last November. You can find a link to their website here.  The Heartland Institute is a free market think tank based in the United States which has been turning out some excellent publications on tax-policy, healthcare, the environment and most recently global warming.  
The Institute focuses most of their work on global warming on challenging runaway climate hysteria campaigns, by promoting proper discussion of the economic and political realities of the situation. They argue that we should not rush, hot-headed, into spending vast sums of money on the basis of weak science and speculation.
This May the Institute will host its 4th annual Climate Conference.  While the agenda has yet to be finalized, the initial speaker’s list seems quite impressive. Coincidentally, a handful of them participated in our own November event.  Dr. Fred Singer, economist Hans Labohm and Anthony Watts will no-doubt reiterate their scientific refutation, put forward pre-Copenhagen, of the myth of anthropogenic climate change, and their arguments against unnecessary government involvement.  The facts were as true then as they are now: the climate is changing, as it always has, always will do. Humans are not the cause and most certainly will not be the solution to a natural cycle which will continue long after we’re gone from this earth.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to The Heartland Institute

  1. Phil Burrows says:

    Oh dear Roger, you seem to have fallen in with a bad lot. The Heartland Institute have been shown time and time and again to be wrong on climate change.

    You also seem to think that climate change is natural so I have provided a link to a very well referenced video showing evidence to the contrary.

  2. ChrisP says:

    Mr Burrows. You have my interest. The Video you present here, does not disprove Natural Climate Change. To be fair, you state it is ‘evidence to the contrary’…. Not actualy disproof in itself. Although the context of your statement suggests that you do not think there is any such thing as natural Climate change? If that was so, you are the first person that I have ever heard make this suggestion. I imagine this is not what you actualy meant however? So what did you mean?

    • Phil Burrows says:

      Thanks for pointing that out, you are quite right, the sentence I wrote was not clear enough. What I meant was:

      Natural climate change alone cannot account for the amount of warming over the last century.

      I would be an idiot if I thought there was no such thing as natural variation and so would the scientists. There is the Milankovitch, PDO, ADO, ENSO, sunspot, cosmic rays to name but a few. They have all been taken into consideration within the various climate models. For an insight into the process of climate modelling try reading Spencer Weart’s Discovery of Global Warming .

  3. Thanks Philip. May I refer you to Peter Taylor’s new book “Chill”, in which he argues, quoting peer-reviewed research, you’ll be pleased to hear, that CO2 cannot account for more than ten to twenty percent of observed climate change, while a combination of natural cyclical factors including the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and heightened solar activity in the nineties, are quite sufficient to explain observed changes without any anthropogenic factor at all. And while we’re at it, Philip, I trust you’re following the IPCC’s embarrassment over its Himalayan glacier claims?

    • Philip Burrows says:

      Thanks Roger, another person on the blog has mentioned Peter Taylor’s book and it is now on my Amazon wishlist. I will get back to you when I have read it (sometime in Feb no doubt).

      In the meantime, I will reference this article from real climate scientists (I don’t know what Peter’s credentials are).

      I did indeed see the IPCC cock up. I think there is no excuse for the ‘2035’ number being in there, but it is still worth considering:

      This was a problem with the Working Group 2 (Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability), which is nowhere near as thorough as Working Group 1 (The Physical Science Basis)
      that the 99% of their “mistakes” are UNDERestimates of likely impacts.

      That the article they quoted from was not peer reviewed, but the physical evidence of manmade climate change has been. Just take a look at the bibliography of the IPCC WG1.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s