Science Under Trump

One of the great achievements of the space age is the use of satellites to help us forecast weather. A hurricane hit Galveston, Texas on September 8, 1900, killing between 6000 and 12,000 people. Compare that to today when this past fall saw three major storms hit the United States with a total death toll between them of 196. The official list of casualties from Puerto Rico is probably way off, but even if the correct number is in the hundreds, we can see the total number of casualties from the three storms combined is a tiny fraction of what happened in Galveston. The difference? Advance warning.

The reason the death toll in Galveston was so high was because no one knew there was a hurricane on the way. Accounts of that day consistently tell of how people went about their normal business with no idea of what was about to happen. In contrast, people ahead of the storms this year were given plenty of advance warning to prepare. A great deal of the advance warning was a result of the data provided by the weather satellites.

I was encouraged when I read of the recent, successful launch of a new next-generation weather satellite. NOAA-20 is the first of four planned JPSS (Joint Polar Satellite System) satellites equipped with the latest instruments and the ability to push forecasts of extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, out to as much as seven days. This satellite is a true scientific marvel and will serve the country well.

So, why is Trump trying to cancel it?

The White House budget for further development of the JPSS program is $50 million. The Senate budget has proposed $419 million. Trump has slashed the budget for the first two missions by more than 50%, from $369.3 million to $180 million. Is this really a cut and not a money shuffle? Well, the Senate Committee on Appropriations “strongly” rejected the administration’s proposed PFO budget cut, stating that it and the unspecified postponement of the PFO satellites “would introduce a weather forecasting risk that this Committee is unwilling to accept.”

Yes, it’s a cut.

Again, you have to wonder why Trump would cut such a vital program that benefits so many Americans. The answer is distressingly simple. Donald Trump, and the people he brought with him to the Executive Branch, hate science. They hate everything about science and everything it does for us.

We can begin with the appointments of Scott Pruitt to head the EPA – one of the most corrupt individuals in Washington and a dedicated hater of anything science. You could also start with the attempted appointment of Sam Clovis to be the chief scientist at the Department of Agriculture, even though he did not hold the necessary minimum qualifications for the position and has a long record of hating science. But, we won’t. Those two points have been hashed over enough. Instead, let’s examine Trump’s budget proposal for federal science programs.

One of the most pathetic sights was the way the NASA budget faced a $600 million decrease in funding (3.1%), but the NASA Administrator was then had to state, “We would like to thank President Trump for his support of the agency in signing the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Transition Authorization Act of 2017.”

I guess it could’ve been worse. And, it was for many other science programs. Trump’s proposed budget released last spring had cuts of 29% for the EPA budget, 17% for the National Institutes of Health, 11% for the National Science Foundation (NSF), 16% for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 15% for the US Geological Survey (USGS) and the DOE’s Office of Science and Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy would see a cut of 93%.

Keep in mind these agencies were already severely under funded the previous year. Now, Trump wants to reduce that inadequate funding by a significant amount. For example, NSF was able to approve only 21% of grant proposals in 2016 and expected that rate to fall to 19% in 2017. That is not enough to support the country’s scientific infrastructure. And, former NOAA administrator Conrad Lautenbacher was quoted as saying, “NOAA already functions on a budget well below national requirements. This reduction on top would mean the loss of vital programs that support fisheries, agriculture, transportation, ocean and coastal management, and the scientific research and development essential to national prosperity now and in the future.” That is what Trump wants to do to science in this country. (The good news is that Congress has largely rejected Trump’s recommendations.)

The most egregious example of Trump’s hatred of all-things science is climate change. A Yale Program on Climate Change Communication survey shows that 58% of the public accepts that climate change is mostly caused by human activity. A survey by AP-Norc and the Energy Policy Institute at The University of Chicago put that figure at 61%. These polls indicate a majority of American citizens, regardless of party affiliation, believe that climate change is a serious issue demanding urgent political action.

Trump’s response? A dramatic slashing of all funding related to climate change. Oh, remember how the anti-science crowd kept saying the science wasn’t settled and they only wanted a debate? Remember how Pruitt was proposing a red team/blue team debate? We can see the lies now. Just like everything else the anti-science crowd puts out there, there is no truth in what they say. Only support for the fossil fuel industry providing them with PAC money.

And that, unfortunately, is what climate change has become – special interests money versus science. Science is winning and will eventually overcome the special interests. But, the damage done in the meantime will be hard to fix. But, I get the impression that is exactly what Trump and his people want.

 

Air Pollution, Scott Pruitt and Heartland Institute

I've read some articles recently that highlight how the corruption of the Trump administration will affect all of us in coming years. Appropriately, it will even affect the people behind these actions.

Scott Pruitt, head of the EPA, has appointed Robert Phalen to the agency's Scientific Advisory Board after being recommended by the Heartland Institute, that great champion of anti-science. Phalen is noted for saying the air is "too clean" and we need to breathe more irritants in order for our bodies to learn how to fight them off and that modern air is too clean for "optimum health."

Really. He actually said that.

Let's take a look at another article, this one published by Science News to see just how invalid his statements are. The article, The list of diseases linked to air pollution is growing lists a number of health problems associated with air pollution. These include:

• 200,000 premature deaths in the United States every year due to particulate air pollution;
• A study of 20 of the largest US cities showed the highest death rates occurred the day after particulate concentrations reached their highest levels;   
• A study of deaths in Boston showed that daily deaths over a decade peaked on days when three pollutants were at their highest levels even though those levels were below the EPA recommended levels;
• The American Heart Association published an article in 2004 stating "a strong case" that air pollution increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, the leading cause of death in the US;
• A paper in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2007 showed an increase of 10 micrograms of fine particles per cubic meter of air increased the risk of dying from heart attack or stroke by 76 percent and the risk of any kind of cardiovascular disease by 24 percent; 
• The American Heart Association updated its position in 2010 that 'the overall evidence is consistent" with a causal relationship between particulate pollution and cardiovascular disease;
• A paper published in 2012 found results consistent with these previous results, stating even mild levels of particulate pollution increased the risk of stroke by 34 percent within a day of exposure;
• Several studies have shown breathing polluted air leads to animals and children developing diabetes symptoms more frequently than control subjects breathing clean air;
• Studies indicate certain pollutants are found to mimic or disrupt actions of hormones, contributing to weight gain;
• Studies have shown children exposed to traffic air pollution have, on average, a higher BMI than children breathing clean air;
• Experiments involving lab animals have shown animals exposed to polluted air gain more weight than animals breathing clean air even though their diets are identical;
• People exposed to the most air pollution are the ones most likely to develop dementia;
• Early results indicate a possible link between Parkinson's disease and air pollution.

This air pollution discussed in this article comes from power plants, industries, vehicles, and other sources of fuel burning. Included in this pollution are carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter. Chemical reactions of  nitrogen oxides with volatile organic compounds creates ozone, a particularly noxious pollutant. Studies show higher mortality rates in areas with areas with higher levels of sulfate particles in the air. 

Oh, and remember the advisor to the EPA says the air is too clean.

If left to Scott Pruitt, this is what our air will look like. I took these pictures recently while traveling in the western US.

Dinosaur Valley National Monument - Northern Colorado. The National Parks Service says the air pollution is from local power plants. You can see approximately 10 miles in this picture. On a clear day you can see nearly five times as far.

A power plant near Pueblo, Colorado. Do I need to say more?

As I said at the beginning, the justice is that the people behind all of this breathe the same air as the rest of us.

Editorial: Why I Refuse to Publish Arguments of Climate Change Deniers

This was published last July, but is very relevant. The editor of the Rossland Telegraph stated her position very succinctly.

**************************

Source: Rossland Telegraph

History of Ball and Harris is not an ad hominem attack

I recently submitted an editorial to the Moultrie News in response to a deceptive piece written by Tom Harris and Tim Ball. In my response, I attacked the credibility of the two individuals and showed they have a history of deception. Harris then went on his Facebook page and asked supporters to go and comment on my submission. You can read my submission, with comments, here. You can read the piece by Ball and Harris here.

As you can see, the defenders of Ball and Harris had no science to support their objections, never countered any of my claims, and consistently claimed I was only making an ad hominem attack to make my case. This, of course, is a false statement and completely in line with the science haters who deny the reality of manmade climate change. What is particularly amusing is the way several of them made ad hominem attacks by claiming I have no published refereed papers. My publication list is not extensive (I concentrate on teaching more than research), but it is certainly there and the reality of the science is not changed by how many papers I have, or have not, published. So, according to these individuals, my statements concerning Harris and Ball are invalid because they can’t operate something as simple as Google Scholar (search “CF Keating physics”).

But, the question is still there: Did I make a personal attack on Ball and Harris? Let’s take a look, beginning with the definition of ad hominem:

ad ho·mi·nem

adverb and adjective

(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

A strict interpretation of this definition would mean any claim concerning any mention of anything about a person is an ad hominem attack and is, therefore, a logical fallacy. But, that is not correct. There are times when attacks on the individual are warranted. For example, it is perfectly acceptable in a court of law to examine the character and credibility of a witness. As a rule, it is admissible to attack the character of a witness when that character has been introduced as evidence. In other words, once someone makes a claim concerning the nature of their character, it is fair game to examine that character but not before. If a drug dealer takes the stand and testifies, you can’t attack him for being a drug dealer unless he claims to be an upright citizen (although there may be other ways the fact can be introduced).

What about credibility, though? Let me quote a law source:

The rules of impeachment allow an attorney to attack the credibility of any witness even a witness called in support of that attorney’s position. An attorney may use any evidence to impeach the credibility of a witness but that rule is not automatic. In most cases courts will only allow an attorney to attack a witness’s credibility using evidence of prior convictions involving dishonesty or untruthfulness. While a court may allow an attorney to question a witness about other incidents in their past, a judge will not allow this line of questioning if he/she determines that it is not probative (tending to prove) in establishing whether a witness is telling the truth or not.

That is all well and good, but the important point is that we are not in a court of law, we are in a public discourse and attacking someone’s character is not logically valid. But, I did not attack the character of either Ball or Harris. Attacking their character would be to make a claim about their private lives. What they do in their private lives has no bearing on the reality of climate change, one way or the other. And, I’m not aware that either Ball or Harris has made claims that they are wonderful people, so it wouldn’t fall under the category of examining their statements. They have both committed fraud concerning their credentials (Harris allows himself to be introduced as ‘Dr. Harris,’ ‘Professor Harris,’ and even as a ‘scientist.’ He is none of these. Ball claims to be a climatology expert and a professor of climatology. He is not.), but that falls under attacking their credibility and not their character.

What is important to understand at this time is that a character attack is usually a logical fallacy but credibility attacks are ALWAYS valid. Quoting from Wikipedia on the subject:

However, in some cases, ad hominem attacks can be non-fallacious; i.e., if the attack on the character of the person is directly tackling the argument itself. For example, if the truth of the argument relies on the truthfulness of the person making the argument—rather than known facts—then pointing out that the person has previously lied is not a fallacious argument.

Wow! Pointing out that the person has previously lied is NOT a fallacious argument! Unfortunately for Ball and Harris, that is an important point.

To make an example, let’s say Joe Smith (a fictional person) likes to kick dogs. This is a reprehensible act and reflects poorly on the character of Joe Smith. Then, Joe Smith takes the position that everyone should eat an apple a day to keep the doctor away. The correctness, or incorrectness, of his position on this matter is not affected by his actions in private. Incidentally, this would also be true if we were talking about Joe Smith spending his spare money and time to help the disadvantaged. It works both ways. Being a saint does not change the reality of the issue any more than being a villain.

But, let’s say Joe Smith has been taking money from the Apple Farmers Association to promote apple sales. Bringing this fact to light is an attack on his credibility – he has a financial interests in telling everyone to eat an apple a day. It is not a character attack, even though the argument can be made his financial matters are private. I think most people would agree with that this is, in fact, relevant information.

But, take it one step further. Let’s say Joe Smith, while in the course of his professional duties, states that he is a medical researcher and that he has conducted medical tests on the benefits of eating apples. It is then perfectly valid to investigate this claim. If it turns out that Joe Smith never did any of that, bringing this point to light is not a character attack, it is attacking his credibility.

And, let’s take it to the next step. Suppose Joe Smith is also found to associate with people and organizations that engage in activities that are valid credibility failures (for instance, someone who has been shown to falsify medical records concerning the benefits of apples). It is a valid credibility attack to show that Joe Smith not only has associations with these individuals, but has failed to distance himself from them in any way. In other words, if Joe Smith is keeping company with and supporting individuals with questionable credibility, then it is a valid credibility attack on Joe Smith to bring this association to light.

So, let’s see what I said about Harris and Ball:

These are two people whose job it is to deceive the public about climate change and are both paid shills of the fossil fuel industry. Tom Harris has strong ties to the tobacco and fossil fuel industries, even though he continues to deny it. He also has a strong affiliation with the Heartland Institute which is currently recommending the EPA appoint a man who was arrested on charges of raping his own children and convicted of attempted sodomy on his own under-age daughter. (http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2017/11/heartland-institute-reveals-its-true.html) These are the people Tom Harris has professional association with. You can read more about his deceptions on climate change at http://tomharrisicsc.blogspot.com/2016/12/tom-harris-paid-shill.html

Contrary to his by-line, Tim Ball is a doctor of historical geography. He is not a climatologist as he claimed and was not a member of the Department of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg. There was no such department while he was there. He has never been a climate scientist and does not have any peer-reviewed papers on the subject. When Ball sued a paper for libel, the court documents stated, Ball "never held a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming." Continuing, the courts also stated, "The Plaintiff's credentials and credibility as an expert on the issue of global warming have been repeatedly disparaged in the media,” and "The Plaintiff is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist."
https://www.desmogblog.com/timothy-f-ball-tim-ball

As you can see, I never said anything about the private lives of Harris or Ball. I spoke to their professional actions and attacked their credibility. In fact, both of these individuals have had their credibility examined and they are both found to have none. Click on the links I provided above to get started, if you need some help.

To summarize:

• Ball and Harris both have extensive associations with the fossil fuel industry and are paid to promote the interests of that industry;
• Ball and Harris have both lied about this association on numerous occasions;
• Ball and Harris have both lied about their credentials or permitted others to lie about them without correcting them;
• Ball and Harris are both listed as associates of the Heartland Institute and neither has criticized that organization for it’s actions or done anything to distance themselves from it;
• Ball and Harris have both, on numerous occasions provided false, misleading, or deceptive clams concerning climate change.

These are all actions taken in the PROFESSIONAL capacity. Addressing these issues is an attack on their credibility and is logically correct. To put it bluntly, they are both liars when it comes to making statements concerning the science of climate change. Pure and simple. And, that is NOT an ad hominem.

So, when you read anything written by either of these two, all I can say is, “Buyer beware!”

Avalanche of Disinformation from Harris and Ball

Two of biggest frauds in the anti-science industry are Tom Harris and Tim Ball. They recently ran an editorial that had numerous faults, fallacies, and false arguments that I had to respond. Essentially, they claim global warming isn't real because they want to question one data base. Of course, they conveniently forget to mention how there are numerous data bases and they all show the same thing. Also, they especially fail to mention Berkeley Earth. That's because it's the grand embarrassment for the anti-science crowd. This is an organization which was initially funded by the Heartland Institute for the purpose of showing AGW isn't real. It developed a data base completely separate from the ones used by the four governmental organizations. What did they find? Almost exactly the same thing. Hmmm. No wonder Ball and Harris fail to mention it.

You can read the original piece by Ball and Harris here. You can read my response here. I'm also reproducing it below.

**********************

Climate Change Deniers Attempt to Bury Public with an Avalanche of Propaganda

By Dr. Christopher Keating

In their editorial, (http://www.moultrienews.com/opinion/avalanche-of-global-warming-propaganda-about-to-hit/article_0e199fba-bf17-11e7-bdfb-d712a113cdc3.html)

Tim Ball and Tom Harris inform the reader with their title that they are not serious when they use the term “propaganda” to describe climate science.

prop·a·gan·da

noun

derogatory

information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

These are two people whose job it is to deceive the public about climate change and are both paid shills of the fossil fuel industry. Tom Harris has strong ties to the tobacco and fossil fuel industries, even though he continues to deny it. He also has a strong affiliation with the Heartland Institute which is currently recommending the EPA appoint a man who was arrested on charges of raping his own children and convicted of attempted sodomy on his own under-age daughter. (http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2017/11/heartland-institute-reveals-its-true.html) These are the people Tom Harris has professional association with. You can read more about his deceptions on climate change at http://tomharrisicsc.blogspot.com/2016/12/tom-harris-paid-shill.html

Contrary to his by-line, Tim Ball is a doctor of historical geography. He is not a climatologist as he claimed and was not a member of the Department of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg. There was no such department while he was there. He has never been a climate scientist and does not have any peer-reviewed papers on the subject. When Ball sued a paper for libel, the court documents stated, Ball "never held a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming."  Continuing, the courts also stated, "The Plaintiff's credentials and credibility as an expert on the issue of global warming have been repeatedly disparaged in the media,” and "The Plaintiff is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist."

https://www.desmogblog.com/timothy-f-ball-tim-ball

Now that we know the nature of these two individuals, we shouldn’t be surprised to find their article is full of deceptions and they do not disappoint. It’s important to note they produce not even a single scientific reference to support any of their claims. They simply want you to accept their word for it.
In the opening paragraph, Ball and Harris state, “We’ll be told that extreme weather, sea level rise, and shrinking sea ice are all about to get much worse if we do not quickly phase out our use of fossil fuels.” Strangely enough, we were told exactly that, but not by the UN Conference. The Trump administration this week released the Fourth National Climate Assessment (http://www.globalchange.gov/nca4). Among other things, the report states, “It is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century,” And, “In addition to warming, many other aspects of global climate are changing, primarily in response to human activities.  Thousands of studies conducted by researchers around the world have documented changes in surface, atmospheric, and oceanic temperatures; melting glaciers; diminishing snow cover; shrinking sea ice; rising sea levels; ocean acidification; and increasing atmospheric water vapor.” There is more. Read the NOAA summary at: http://www.noaa.gov/news/federal-climate-science-report-for-us-released. And, let’s be clear that this assessment comes from an administration that has repeatedly stated that manmade climate change is not real and has done everything in its power to undermine climate science.

Ball and Harris make several dubious comments that have no basis in reality. For instance, they claim that without a good understanding of past weather, forecasts of future climate change are “impossible.” This is a false statement in multiple ways. First, contrary to their claim, we have a good understanding of past weather conditions. And, not only is it possible to make meaningful forecasts, but we are already doing a good job of it. Again, contrary to what the science-haters will tell you, climate models are good and getting better. Read more about models here: http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2017/09/climate-change-is-not-about-models.html; and here: http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/08/lets-talk-about-climate-models.html. There are many other places, but these, and the links therein, will get you started.

The science-hating tandem then attacks the data, which is a losing proposition. What Ball and Harris attempt to do is attack one data set with deceptive claims, with the hope that it will taint all data. They do this all the while failing to mention that the data are all confirmed with multiple data sources. People like Ball and Harris like to cherry-pick one datum point to support their claims (citing how a given town is experiencing the coldest temperature in some long period of time, for instance), but scientists don’t. Data is collected from multiple sources, such as tree rings or cores from sea floor and ice shelves, plus others. What we find is that the multiple sources are all consistent, each confirming the findings of the others.

They state, “Most of the rest of the planet had very few temperature sensing stations. And none of the Earth’s oceans, which cover 70% of the planet, had more than the occasional station separated from its neighbor by thousands of kilometers.” So? What is the significance of this statement? They give none, which is good because there is none. But they continue, stating, “Averaging such poor data in an attempt to determine global conditions cannot yield anything meaningful.” Of course, this is a false statement. What is true is that the resolution and fidelity is not ideal, but the data is most definitely meaningful, especially when confirmed by those many other data sets. And, the data is only improving with time and this improving resolution is showing the same trend as before.

They continue, claiming satellite data does not show global warming. This claim is based on papers by Roy Spencer and John Christy, two well-known climate change deniers. Review of their papers found them to be so flawed they were withdrawn. And yet, Ball and Harris want you to believe the false claims. Read about these papers here: https://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm.

They then make the preposterous claim, “So, bureaucrats closed most of the colder rural surface temperature sensing stations, thereby yielding the warming desired for political purposes.” As you might expect by now, the reality is vastly different. Read a detailed report on this here: https://www.skepticalscience.com/Why-are-there-less-weather-stations-and-whats-the-effect.html.

Their conclusion from this deception? They claim the data is meaningless. Take a moment to think about this statement. They themselves claim the data has become more accurate over time, therefore, according to them, this makes it ‘meaningless.’

And, they want you to believe this.

The reality is, our understanding of the historical climate is quite good and our understanding of the present day climate is excellent and getting better. What they don’t want you to know is that the science is overwhelming conclusive and nearly all climate scientists around the world agree – manmade emissions are causing the world’s climate to change.

As it turns out, there really was an avalanche of propaganda, but it came from Ball and Harris, not the climate scientists.

Dr. Christopher Keating is a physicist and conducts research in planetary geophysics, including climate change.

A Small Vicitory For The Envionment - Clovis is Gone

Trump's nominee to be the chief scientist at the Department of Agriculture, Sam Clovis, has withdrawn his nomination. I've written about this guy before, as has the entire news media, and there is no question about how he is unqualified for the position and didn't even meet the minimum standards set by law (must be a scientist). But, that isn't even why he withdrew his nomination - it was his links to Russia that finally nixed him. Apparently, he was completely prepared to go into his Senate confirmation hearing to address his record of bigotry, his anti-science record, and even the fact that he is unqualified for the job. None of that phased him. But, he was not willing to face questions about his link to the Russia probe.

Trump didn't drain the swamp, he brought it with him.

However, let's not get too excited. Trump will certainly nominate someone from the same mold. Trump has clearly demonstrated he hates science, the science community, and the environment. He is using his position to inflict as much damage as possible. So, we can be confident the next nominee for the position will be a white male with a record of bigoted comments and history of hating science.

You heard it hear first.

Heartland Institute Reveals Its True Character

If you are at all familiar with the Heartland Institute you have probably formed a strong opinion of them and their character. But, there's nothing like examining their own actions to see just who they are. As they say, actions speak louder than words.

There's this report that when Heartland submitted its list of names for the proposed EPA red team/blue team debates, they included a man convicted of attempting to sodomize his own 11-year old daughter. While the attempted sodomy charge is the only one he was convicted of, he was arrested in 2006 on two counts of rape, four counts of sodomy and one count of attempted sodomy as a result of sex abuse accusations by his children dating back decades. The other charges were dropped. 

As they say, you can tell a lot about someone by the company they keep. And, Heartland keeps company with a man convicted of trying to sodomize his own underage daughter and was arrested on multiple charges of sexually assaulting his own children. Quite a resume.

But, it continues. Here's a partial list of some of the 'climate experts' Heartland is recommending to the EPA:

[Anthony]Watts was also on list the Heartland Institute gave to the EPA. Other names included Edwin Berry, the self-funded researcher who spews Islamophobic vitriol online and compares belief in climate change to Aztec human sacrifices; Alan Carlin, the so-called “whistleblower” who challenged the EPA’s finding that rising greenhouse gases warm the planet; and Joe Bastardi, a meteorologist who made repeated appearances on disgraced former Fox News host Bill O’Reilly’s show to yell about why global warming isn’t a problem.

          Source: Huffington Post

Notice that not a single person listed in that paragraph has any background as a climate scientist. I guess you can also tell a lot about someone by the company they don't keep. You can see the entire list of names they submitted here.

And, there is this list of strategy points from a Joseph Bast email:

ast listed assorted “thoughts” and “highlights” in the leaked email, including:

• “be briefing news reporters and news readers at Fox News.”
• “reach the President by tweeting on the issue.”
• “hold more congressional hearings.”
• “simplify the issue by focusing on one or only a few arguments and images.”
• “identify a few good spokespersons and focus on promoting them.”
• “stop chasing the other side’s latest argument and focus instead on the benefits of CO2.”
• “focus on the 'tuning scandal' that discredits the models.”
• “turn debate from referring to median temperatures to high temperatures, which show no trend.”
• “find independent funding for Roy Spencer, David Schnare, Willie Soon, Craig Idso, David Legates, etc.”
• “push Pruitt to start a proceeding for reconsideration of the Endangerment Finding… he won’t do it without pressure”
• “we need to be able to say 'EPA is reconsidering whether CO2 is a pollutant.'”
• “emphasize that we are pro-science and pro-environment… and the other side is not”
• “fundamentally challenge, reform, or replace the National Academy of Sciences, the source of much pseudoscience.”
• “conduct a new survey of scientists to refute the 97% consensus claims.”
• “sue a company for not increasing CO2 emissions, force a court to consider the evidence on CO2 benefits.”

                Source: DeSmogBlog

Really? They plan on suing a company because it didn't emit enough CO2? I wonder what they'll use for legal standing. Maybe they can claim there are too many healthy people using up resources and it's the responsibility of industry to kill off as many people as possible with its pollution. I also love the one about finding independent funding for the list of anti-science people. That is essentially an admission that they only place these individuals can get funding is Heartland, and Heartland is funding anti-science false research.

Also, notice the reference to Fox News. It's true, you can tell a lot about people by the company they keep. Except in this case, is it Heartland or Fox News that is getting dirty?

For fun, you can review this leaked 2012 fund-raising plan from Heartland. It's telling. In it, it talks about receiving funds from the Kochs - do I need to say more?

The facts were already in - Heartland Institute is one of the scuzziest organizations out there, as are the people associated with it. All this did was to illustrate it once again.

If you want to know more about how despicable this group is, you can read about it at these references:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/what-if-you-held-a-conference-and-no-real-scientists-came/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/climate-cover-up-a-brief-review/

https://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/15/leak-exposes-heartland-institute-climate