Talk:The Heartland Institute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Heartland Institute disagrees with the scientific consensus on climate change[edit]

This statement is problematic and misleading. There is little doubt that HI disagreed in 1998 with a scientific consensus that was not established in the literature until later, yet the statement is presented as if it is HI's current position. I see no indication that HI disagrees with the consensus that the human contribution is significant, as documented in the 2009 Doran and Zimmerman paper. Citations are needed for HI's current position. Poodleboy (talk) 08:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

There is no reference to the Heartland Institute in that. Basically as you say you need a citation for their current position if you believe it has changed significantly. The Heartland Institute does currently have a policy paper [1] which runs down that paper so I can't see why one would think they agree with the criteria in it. Dmcq (talk) 09:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
In that critique, Heartland agrees with the consensus as stated in Doran and Zimmerman: "Most skeptics would answer those two questions the same way as alarmists would. At issue is not whether the climate warmed since the Little Ice Age or whether there is a human impact on climate, but whether the warming is unusual in rate or magnitude;" Their critique is with the quality and interpretations of the paper. Poodleboy (talk) 14:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
This Heartland statement updated September 01, 2015 is profoundly at odds with the scientific consensus. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Could you be more specific? Heartland is correct that the rapid warming of 80s and 90s was mostly natural as was the pause in the warming trend since then, the underlying trend of 0.1C per decade is rather tepid. They don't question a human contribution that is significant, just consider this warming pretty small. That places them within the consensus. Poodleboy (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
"Profoundly" is a bit of an overstatement.
  • The scientific consensus is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas which can lead to warming. As you know, there are some wackos who dispute that fact, but the Heartland statement expresses agreement with that fact.
  • The scientific consensus is that there has been warming in the 20th century. As you know, there are some wackos who dispute that, but the Heartland statement expresses agreement with that fact.
  • The scientific consensus is that human activities played a significant role in the rising temperatures, although the contribution of human activities is not completely settled. The Heartland statement suggest a little more uncertainty than the scientific consensus. The Heartland statement does not contend, as some wackos have contended that human activities play no role.
  • The Heartland statement suggests two thirds of the warming in the 90's is natural, implying one third is due to human activities. The scientific consensus is for a higher proportion of human activity contributions. This is a difference, but hardly profound.
  • Heartland states that the warming trend has already stopped. Scientists do not accept this. It is a fact there is a long recent period through which a zero trendline fits, but the Heartland is ahead of themselves when they conclude that this means the warming trend has stopped.
In summary, it is fair to say that the Heartland position is not fully embracing of the scientific consensus. There are differences, and with respect to some aspects of the larger question, especially politically inspired proposals for addressing the issue, they are very much in disagreement. However I think it's an overstatement to equate state that their position on the scientific consensus is profoundly in disagreement.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
While I agree that you properly state where the literature is trending, your details go beyond any "consensus" that has actually been measured. Considering that the hiatus and the climate sensitivity to CO2 forcing are still highly active areas of research, I doubt the consensus can be stated as detailed as you present it. Poodleboy (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Can you be more specific about where you disagree with my summary? I agree that climate sensitivity is a big issue (and deserves far more discussion) but I didn't mention it. The hiatus is still a subject of debate, but I don't think a consensus of scientists yet disagree with the claim that it is a statistical anomaly and consistent with a long-term trend.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I should note that your two-thirds reference mistates their position, they were referring to just the 90s. I don't see how they get much above 50% myself. Poodleboy (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Fair point, corrected.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
The problem with attributing most of the warming to human emissions greenhouse gasses, is that the proportion of the warming attributable to humans varies, probably less than half of the rapid warming of the 80s and 90s was anthropogenic, since that was due to natural positive phases of multidecade ocean and tradewind modes. But if you take the longer view, which includes complete natural cycles, i.e., the mid-century cooling and the recent pause, then nearly all the warming is anthropogenic. Note that in earlier IPCC reports, the consensus would have been a high level of confidence that nearly all the rapid warming of the 80s and 90s was anthropogenic. Note also that since that time the relative proportion of any anthropogic warming attributed to black carbon has increased.
Here is just one of the results coming to terms with the midcentury cooling and the recent pause in the journal Science. Its hiatus hypothesis argues for a heat sink and cyclic modes in the Atlantic rather than the Pacific, and referencing the other paper.
The press release contained these two statements:
"Rapid warming in the last three decades of the 20th century, they found, was roughly half due to global warming and half to the natural Atlantic Ocean cycle that kept more heat near the surface."
"The authors dug up historical data to show that the cooling in the three decades between 1945 to 1975 – which caused people to worry about the start of an Ice Age – was during a cooling phase. (It was thought to be caused by air pollution.)"
Here are the press release and paper:
http://www.washington.edu/news/2014/08/21/cause-of-global-warming-hiatus-found-deep-in-the-atlantic-ocean/
http://www.sisal.unam.mx/labeco/LAB_ECOLOGIA/OF_files/heat%20sink%20led%20to%20global-warming%20slowdown.pdf
Poodleboy (talk) 14:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
@Poodleboy: if you would like to ramble on about something new, please start a new section. This section is about whether the "Heartland Institute disagrees with the scientific consensus on climate change". Bringing in your own views and random articles related to climate change issues, which do not mention Heartland, doesn't help address the question.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
The cited work backed up the two thirds you cited with "roughly half", showing that HI was less far off base than you implied. I guess I should have mentioned HI? Poodleboy (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Why do you need "implied"? Why not go with what I said? I said it was different. HI says one third. If you can find a scientific consensus that says one third, then you are right. If you cannot, then my original statement was fine.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with what you are claiming is the consensus, versus what is just a good summary of the current state of the literature, although you didn't seem to understand that leading explanations of the hiatus are also explaining the rapid warming of the 80s and 90s and the mid-century cooling as well. It is difficult to specifically dispute HI's two thirds for the 90s because most work isn't that specific to the 90s and they didn't reference how they got there. Most scientists do believe that the warming will pick up again, as do the leading hypotheses about the hiatus. I suspect that HI believes that as well and is just being opportunistic by leaving it hanging. But the documented consensus doesn't extend to these issues. Poodleboy (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
"I disagree with what you are claiming is the consensus". Please be specific. Quote my statement, and explain what is wrong. FWIW, this is an extremely complicated issue, and I was being casual in my summary. If you wish to nitpick, take it elsewhere. If you think I materially mistated the IPCC consensus, please identify my statement and your view of the error.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)



Your interpretations of the scientific consensus are interesting and original. We summarize the consensus position here. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

By "your", whom do you mean?--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Technically that page is about scientific opinion and not about any documented consensus, it cherry picks mixing in far more AR4 quotes than IPCC AR5 quotes, and even those are produced through a process that is more political than consensus. AR5 backed off from claims attributing most of the warming to GHGs including other anthropogenic forcings, it backed off from "most" to the more specific "more than half" per IPCC AR5 SPM (Summary for Policy Makers) statement, and even more true today with 4 more years of "the pause":
“It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together"
Poodleboy (talk) 16:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Can we get back on task? I tried to collapse your off-topic discussion, but my attempt to get this discussion back on track was reverted, so we will have to do it the old-fashioned way. Please note the section heading "The Heartland Institute disagrees with the scientific consensus on climate change". Discussion of the deep ocean warming theory are relevant to a discussion of how much warming was natural versus anthropogenic, but are not relevant to whether HI's position is in agreement with scientific consensus, which is shorthand for the IPCC position.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Convenience break[edit]

Can we return to your original points? I'll summarize them as follows, feel free to let me know if you prefer a different summary.

  1. The statement The Heartland Institute disagrees with the scientific consensus on climate change needs a citation.
  2. HI agrees that with consensus that the human contribution is significant. (Technically, you had a double negative, which I've converted to an affirmative statement)
  3. Citations are needed for HI's current position

Regarding #1, I agree. As written it is a hamfisted summary of a complicated position. There are even scientists who help write the IPCC documents who disagree with some conclusions. We need two things - a more nuanced claim, and a citation to back it up. I think it is fair to say that HI agrees with many things in the IPCC report, but disagrees, in some cases strongly, with others aspects of the report. I'm not proposing this as an actual wording replacement, just want to see if editors are in agreement.

Regarding #2, am I right that this is in response to the article statement that Rather, it says that human activities are not driving climate change? I agree that a discussion about a citation is warranted, as I don't think that is their position. Ideally, we will find their position, and rewrite the statement to match their position.

Regarding point #3, I agree, and have specifically discussed two of the cite needed tags. There is also the lead sentence, but we should first address the issues in the body, then rewrite, if necessary, the lead.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your statements here. But disagree with your phrase above "IPCC consensus". IPCC reports are a summary by the authors, but the reports while a substantial effort and a good comprehensive summary, they don't rise to the level of consensus or peer review. While there are expert reviews giving feedback to the authors that they are required to respond to, whether they accept or reject the review points is up to them. Poodleboy (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Regarding point #2, the scientific consensus is not that "the human contribution is significant" but that the human contribution is dominant. As stated in AR5, "It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period." Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
The "consensus" is not what a few IPCC authors write, who knows how many agree with that. The consensus is what is published in the peer review as some kind of assessment of a consensus level agreement. See in my next comment at the current bottom. Poodleboy (talk) 03:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the Heartland statement linked above, it is clear that they (HI) agree that global warming has and will occur. However, they disagree that global warming is a crises, etc. Encyclopedic editing demands that their position be stated clearly (and without smearing them). Given that this is a controversial issue (that is, the true/accurate nature of HI's position), the description in the lede needs an NPOV approach. Something like "HI has expressed skepticism about the causes, extent, and seriousness of global warming. Other organizations have criticized the Institute for these views." The article body is the best place to flesh out these statements. – S. Rich (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

That is a reasonable approach, it seems unreasonable to have to fight something in the intro that is unable to be justified below. HI is definitely skeptical of the extent and seriousness of GW, and identifies as skeptics. While they may have held out hope for significant role for solar in the past, they have accepted the consensus significant anthropogenic cause.Poodleboy (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Looking at what the Heartland Institute says in [2] it is pretty clear to me they are still denying the consensus position documented by the IPCC. There is no smear involved, they are proud of what they are doing. I think what is in the lead is a good short description of their position. Dmcq (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
As has been discussed in some detail above, there are many aspects to the consensus. HI agrees with some, have minor differences on some and more substantive differences on others. The bald statement "rejects the scientific consensus on global warming" is not an accurate summary of their position. If you still think so, why?--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
The consensus is established by peer review trying to assess the level of agreement, not by a few authors. If you want to say the HI disagrees with a few IPCC authors that is one thing, if you want to say they deny the consensus that is another. The most cited 97% number is from the 2009 Doran and Zimmerman paper.
"In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2." [3]
Here are the poll questions:
Q1. When compared with pre-1800's levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
1. Risen
2. Fallen
3. Remained relatively constant
4. No opinion/Don't know
Q2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
[This question wasn't asked if they answered "remained relatively constant" to Q1]
1. Yes
2. No
3. I'm not sure
The reported consensus is the 97% that answered yes to question 2, "human activity is a significant contributing factor", i.e., significant, not dominant, not most. It is a position most skeptics can agree to. Skeptics are part of the consensus. Poodleboy (talk) 03:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Could you stop doing WP:OR and refer to things which mention the Heartland Institute thanks? Picking and choosing surveys to find bits where they are not so specific shows very little and is not how Wikipedia works. What you need is citations which are relevant to the topic. If you can find a reliable source that says what you are saying then that would be useful for the discussion. At the very beginning of [4] they say 'the warming trend already has stopped'. That is simply not consistent with agreeing that global warming is happening. Dmcq (talk) 09:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
It is WP:OR to conclude that discussion of the pause or hiatus is not consistent with global warming is happening. Do you think global warming wasn't happening during the mid-century cooling, also? The IPCC discussed the hiatus in AR5 and IPCC authors have published on the hiatus.Poodleboy (talk) 15:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
What happened during that Global warming hiatus was that there were some indications global temperature didn't rise so fast as in the previous few years, not that it stopped rising. Yes saying global warming is not happening is inconsistent with saying global warming is happening. And even if the hiatus had been an actual stop like the Heartland Institute seems to be trying to make out that would still be denying the consensus that it was in general rising. Dmcq (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
The trend during the hiatus has not been statistically significant. The consensus statement is that temperatures have "generally risen" and that "the human contribution is significant". BTW, the hiatus may now be over, we have to see what the response is after this el Nino. These are exciting times for climate science. Poodleboy (talk) 02:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
What you say about the hiatus is not supported by the article I linked to. You'd only get 'not statistically significant' if you are careful to ignore known causes of variability and choose your period carefully. Dmcq (talk) 08:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
If you are referring to the wikipedia article on the pause, the evidence that the trends during the pause are not statistically significant or different from zero are in these figures "0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C" and "0.07 [–0.02 to 0.18] °C". Note that a negative or cooling trend is within the range. There is an extensive literature on the hiatus, I've seen articles picking 1995, 1997, 1998, 2000 and 2001 as beginning years. I've usual analyzed lengths of periods are 10, 15, or 16 years. Poodleboy (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Poodleboy, your attempt to downplay the importance of the IPCC assessment (and to consequently downplay the notability of HI's disagreement with the IPCC assessment) by dismissing it as the non-peer-reviewed views of "a few IPCC authors" is misleading. [Disclosure: I have previously been an author of part of IPCC WGI assessment reports.] The starting point for the IPCC assessments is the peer-reviewed literature. This provides both breadth (i.e. it is not just the views of "a few", but derives from the findings of many published scientists) and peer-review of the underlying findings. These aspects are then strengthened through the various drafting and review stages, specifically by challenge from the large author team, from the TSU, from the open external expert reviews, from external review by government employed/appointed experts, and from the review editors' oversight of the review process. My personal opinion is that some elements of this process can be better (they already improved for AR5), such as a more transparent process to select authors, yet stronger role of review editors, and more open communication of the approval process to dispel the strange and incorrect notion that these are political rather than scientific reports -- but despite there being room for improvement, the IPCC assessments are a good indication of the current scientific consensus and it is misleading to dismiss them as you seem to try. TimOsborn (talk) 09:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I too have participated in the IPCC WG1 process, and I agree that the AR5 reforms are an improvement. While the authors have to respond to the expert reviews there is no followup requiring them to be really responsive. But what is essentially a review of the literature is not an assessment of the level of consensus. I don't dismiss the reports as a review but simply of attempts to make more of them. The most important levels of confidence do end up being political. There is hesitancy to displease the governments and to report lower confidence than in the prior reports, despite advances in the diagnostic analsyses that show that both prior and current confidence was unjustified. The intellectual facileness reaches its highest level in the uncritical parroting of model projections. Despite all the published diagnostic issues there is no attempt to provide an error or confidence range for the models. Sorry but the range of model sensitivities and scenarios just doesn't cut it. A population range is not an error range. My interest here at HI is limited, they are skeptics, luke warmers and disagreeing with the IPCC is not disagreeing with the consensus. Incorporating unsourced opinion attacking them is just endorsing name calling. Poodleboy (talk) 10:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
And your response isn't really responsive to my comment ;-) This isn't a blog, it's for things directly related to improving the HI wiki page. I agree that IPCC does not (at least not directly) assess the level of consensus, but it does provide a reasonable description of what the consensus is -- and that is relevant when stating (or not) that HI rejects the consensus. I didn't observe any hesistancy to displease governments during the process nor any political influence on stated levels of consensus. TimOsborn (talk) 11:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
A good illustration and reductio ad absurdem of your statement that the reports is a reasonable description of the consensus rather than a mere review is this statement "No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies” (SPM-11, fn 16) Is that statement the consensus? The authors at either end of the spectrum would probably disagree, thinking that they could give a best estimate. BTW, whether the IPCC is the consensus, is relevant to the HI editing, given the consensus text being proposed. I know the authors refused to adjust their confidence for documented errors larger than the GHG forcing. Poodleboy (talk) 12:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
No, that's only a useful illustration if you begin with the false idea that consensus means a single position. Where a range of outcomes is consistent with the available lines of evidence, the assessment is a range which may or may not have a best estimate within the range. And this assessment can equally well represent a consensus position that, given current evidence, there is a range of reasonable possibilities. So, yes, the quoted statement could be the consensus. Can you provide a wp:reliable source for your final claim? If not, then this isn't a suitable forum. TimOsborn (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
This review position is not about a range, but rather a divergence of results from different approaches. A mere range has not prevented a best estimate in the past. Woe be to those scientists who have dared to publish best estimates. They are now outside the "consensus".Poodleboy (talk) 07:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The only point I can see for your religious type language is you want to talk to religious people and say they should be against the science because it does not have a definite laid down dogma like a proper religion does. Religious people may be against other religions, but what seems to really irk them is people who aren't religious. Dmcq (talk) 10:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
There are scientists at the time of and since the AR5 review, who have given best estimates of the climate sensitivity, including one who specifically thank Tim Osborn for his assistance. The global temperature increase, for a CO2 doubling, is found to lie (95% confidence limits) between 3.0 and 6.3C, with a best estimate of +4C. ... David Stevenson and Tim Osborn are thanked for helpful discussions.[5] Are Roy Thompson and others deniers of the "consensus" that no best estimate can be given? If I looked, perhaps I would even find a WG1 lead author who gave a best estimate. The IPCC reports are just be big review of the literature with non-peer reviews summary opinions, not a consensus. Poodleboy (talk) 06:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
No they are not. If you really want to find an answer may I suggest you look at List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. They have all been described by a secondary source as opposing the consensus or words to that effect. Try and find one of them who is on that list for saying they can give a good estimate of something where the IPCC has said there is no consensus. You are simply indulging in WP:OR again and with reasoning that has no evidence of any general acceptance. Go to some outside forum if you want to indulge in rhetoric. Dmcq (talk) 08:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
You are missing the thread of the discussion. Since the IPCC reports are just reviews of the current state of the literature, a lot of their summaries are going to have lower levels of confidence and/or agreement or just inconclusive. To say that all these are "consensus" is ridiculous. Just because a dozen or so lead authors can reach a consensus on a best estimate of climate sensitivity, doesn't mean that is the consensus of the climate community in general, there are many conflicting claims of what the best estimate should be. If no best estimate can be given is the consensus, the ridiculous result is that those who do think they can give a best estimate are now deniers of this consensusPoodleboy (talk) 09:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
That is WP:OR on your part. It is also not generally recognized reasoning as you can show for yourself by following the fact checking route I showed you. It is also irrelevant to the topic of this discussion and not aimed at improving the article. This is not a forum. Dmcq (talk) 09:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
That is a violation of WP:AGF on your part. This is too a forum for working out what are acceptable sources and whether they support the material in the article. We are not supposed to work this out in edit wars. Poodleboy (talk) 09:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I think you act in a disruptive way disregarding Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, it could easily be in good faith but it really doesn't matter what the reason is. There are noticeboards for deciding whether sources count as reliable sources WP:RSN, and for deciding whether things are original research WP:ORN. If you have a query on questions like that ask at those boards. However as far as I can see you are using this talk page as a forum for your own thoughts and you have done that in a number of talk pages over a while despite the problem being pointed out to you on a number of occasions. Exactly what source are you talking about, does it mention the Heartland Institute and does it make the point you are trying to make? Dmcq (talk) 10:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
This discussion is about the claim that the IPCC reports are consensus. Do you have something to contribute? You see the problem is the reports are quite extensive, making the claim rather unlimited. So deciding which IPCC AR5 claims are consensus and which are not is WP:OR. Poodleboy (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
We don't have to make any such decisions here. Reliable secondary sources describe them as supporting climate change denial. Do you have a reliable source that says otherwise? Dmcq (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't quite know what to say to that. Perhaps deniers find some support in the reports, I would expect them to think they do. They would like to think the science is on their side. Poodleboy (talk) 10:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
How about something like "I understand that readers aren't interested in what editors think, only what is in reliable sources. Unfortunately I couldn't see how to avoid putting in my own thoughts here. Thanks for the explanation"? Dmcq (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Lede removal[edit]

I've twice now reverted this removal, as the content removed appears to be well sourced to weighty RS. Please discuss and get consensus here before reverting again. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

You have twice now reverted removal, please discuss here and get consensus before reverting again. Poodleboy (talk) 03:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
It is you who needs consensus for removal as the statements are well sourced and relevant. This is an encyclopaedia not a newspaper where only the last week is documented. Dmcq (talk) 09:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
How is "last week documented" relevant to the discussion? Poodleboy (talk) 09:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
You removed the bit about their fight to stop restrictions on smoking. The bit about climate is covered above. Dmcq (talk) 10:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I removed unattributed opinion about working with Phillip Morris, which differs from HI statement of its policy. I had previously just attributed the opinion, but someone evidently thought knowing whose opinion it was gives it less weight. It shouldn't be in the intro. It helps to review the history. Poodleboy (talk) 11:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Could you be a bit clearer about what you mean by 'unattributed opinion' when there is a citation from a reliable source on the sentence? Dmcq (talk) 00:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
That would be sufficient if the text was put in for the truth of the matter, but the text is opinion and arguably false, not attributing the opinion gives it undue weight.Poodleboy (talk) 01:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway are both respected historians of science and what is said there is documented in the source. I don't know where you get the idea that there is any doubt about what they said about the Heartland Institute and smoking is anything but the plain unvarnished truth. Please provide a contrary source before going on with this sort of thing. Dmcq (talk) 08:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
They are credentialed and their work for the cause earns them Anita Hill levels of praise, but the work of Oreskes is an embarrassment to science, surveying abstracts for gosh sakes. When it comes to Heartland, their conclusions are their opinions, and the evidence hardly speaks for itself. Bast soliciting a paltry $30,000 in 1999 from Phillip Morris 3 years after writing his Joe Camel essay is hardly "working with". The Heartland Institute's opinion is equally valid, that they keep any researchers at arms length from any funders influence, and their opposition to environmental regulation extends far beyond just skepticism of second hand smoke back at the time when there was little published evidence to support the fear mongering and when their values regardless of evidence and funding would dictate opposition to regulation. "Working with" is an opinion. Selective citing of specifics, without perspective introduces POV bias into the article, the type of bias through innuendo and association Oreskes set out to produce. The ACLU had a far more extensive involvement with the tobacco regulation debate, and the small Heartland Institute and its pamphlets and is policy positions had far broader environmental regulation concerns than just tobacco.Poodleboy (talk) 10:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
That is all your own research and as far as I can see is just waffle with little relevance. Please provide a citation that I can look at. Dmcq (talk) 10:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
By the way I see HI still supports 'smokers rights', see [6] where they say 'The public health community's campaign to demonize smokers and all forms of tobacco is based on junk science' and yet a few statements on say 'The harm caused by smoking can be reduced by educating smokers about safer options such as electronic cigarettes and smokeless tobacco'! I remember when I first started work getting headaches and smarting eyes from the smokers and I can say I am absolutely and totally glad those days are past and them paying taxes does not entitle them to cause me harm. Dmcq (talk) 10:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Every risk doesn't require a regulation. Since HI's position was a matter of principle, you wouldn't expect it to disappear just because the funding was gone, would you?. The ACLU stuff was just apparent from searches trying to find HI information in tobacco documents. I'm not trying to put that in the article. HI's positions are available here: [7]. Hopefully you can recognized the "waffle with little relevance" that is in the article as well Poodleboy (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Well I am altogether glad regulations have stopped people thinking they have a right to give me a headache. Dmcq (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Let's focus on accurately portraying what is in the sources instead of arguing the merits of each side of the global warming debate and the tobacco debate. We are here to improve the article, not to "win".Trackerbot2291 (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The working with hit piece opinions should not be in the lead, and they should be explicitly attributed when they appear below. I reviewed the paltry original sources, and if Heartland was working with Phillip Morris then the ACLU was owned by Phillip Morris. Heartland claims a firewall between contributions and their research staff, and the original sources support that. Phillip Morris' key contact with Heartland brags about convincing some HI staffer of some position, something that would be hardly remarkable if they were working together, it is more as if they encountered each other at some conference and he informed the HI staffer of some statistical or technical point. Bast was seeking a paltry sum 3 years after writing an essay. The authors are entitled to their opinion, but it should be identified as such and not stated as the unattributed truth of the matter in the lead. HI still champions smokers rights against what it views as excessive regulation. It claims what it does is not lobbying, it probably can't be lobbying based upon their tax status, so claiming it is, is accusing HI of a crime. That should be attributed to the source, wikipedia should not stand as the source of such an accusation. Such opinions should be explicitly attributed.Poodleboy (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
So we're supposed to just accept your own research over that of the authors? How about I go around and for instance I see that Philip Morris was a platinum sponsor to Heartland Institute and entitled to special promotion? Is that not acceptable by your standards? How about we just stick to reliable sources without OR? Dmcq (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Dmcq (here and throughout these discussions). Edit-warring based upon personal opinions will only result in a block. --Ronz (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

It does no such thing -Stephen Schulz[edit]

Someone did not read the source. Your opinion is irrelevant. Just ask Dmcq. Poodleboy (talk) 04:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

We're supposed to paraphrase, not just copy. The problem with just taking the word skeptical out of context is that in a scientific context it means a questioning attitude which ensures fact checking is done properly, whereas its use in climate change has come to mean disbelief or even denier. It is pretty certain the latter meaning is meant here as they talk about it in the context of trying to confuse the public and delay action. As the source says "If you read a statement about climate change with the name of any of the above-mentioned organizations attached, you should do so with the understanding that you are most likely reading global-warming denier propaganda". Saying 'oppose' makes it clear what is meant. Dmcq (talk) 10:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
What part of the source are you "paraphrasing" with "disagrees with the consensus on climate change"? Keep in mind WP:OR. That is quite a leap you are taking from "disbelief" to "denier", and that "skeptical" means something different in climate change. Keep in mind that much so called "denier propaganda" does not disagree with the consensus on climate change, for instance citing model diagnostic literature, or reports of new understanding not captured in the models, or reports of record levels of sea ice in the southern ocean. Poodleboy (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Poodleboy: I agree with Dmcq. Your use of skepticism takes the source out of context and changes the meaning. Jim1138 (talk) 11:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
There is more support for skepticism in the source than for "disagrees with the consensus on climate change". The source is also not very specific to Heartland, generalizing over several organizations. Poodleboy (talk) 11:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Well I'd prefer 'opposes' to 'disagrees with', for all I know they might agree with it but simply be denying it so they get paid, but I'm pretty certain your 'promotes skepticism' is too ambiguous without more context. It is usual to anthropomorphize organisations as having feelings which directly reflect what they do so disagree is okay though. Dmcq (talk) 13:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and changed it to "opposes". "Global warming deniers, on the other hand, have a different agenda: they seek a "truth" according to their clients' needs or according to their political beliefs." "If you read a statement about climate change with the name of any of the above-mentioned organizations attached, you should do so with the understanding that you are most likely reading global warming denier propaganda." --Ronz (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Dmcq (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
It is important to be thankful, but it would be more helpful it the source supported opposition to the consensus on climate change. Where does the source claim opposition to the consensus on climate change. How is it defining the consensus and climate change. After all "denial" is a rather imprecise term. HI is skeptical of the extreme claims of danger and urgency, but that is hardly the consensus. One way to judge whether the source supports the statement is whether you could reasonably put those words in the sources mouth, fully attributed. Just stating a change to "opposes", rather understates the differences in the texts.Poodleboy (talk) 23:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Poodleboy that "opposes" is too weak ("rejects" or "dismisses" would be more accurate), but it's not that big a deal. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The paragraph before explains climate change denial saying "The global warming denial lobby takes advantage of this and promotes the views of an extreme minority to make it appear there is no scientific consensus on global warming and the human role in climate change". The Heartland Institute's own top page for their Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy says 'There is No “Scientific Consensus” on Global Warming' so they are pretty clear on the subject. I guess we could just say they promote climate change denial and remove the bit saying they acknowledge it is happening. Which would be reasonable as another of their documents Global Warming: Not a Crisis says it has stopped. Dmcq (talk) 10:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Bad guess, if you read the article entitled There is No “Scientific Consensus” on Global Warming, you will see that it is a critique of the social science claims that there is a consensus, not of the science of climate change. HI appears to disagree that global warming is a problem, but one does not need to believe that global warming is a problem or that there is a consensus to be part of the consensus as measured by the social science polls. Poodleboy (talk) 10:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
We have reliable sources saying one thing and we have the Heartland Institute which seems pretty definitely to say the same thing about themselves so I really don't see that we need a discussion about the matter. If you have a source that says otherwise please produce it. Dmcq (talk) 12:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The Heartland Institute is a primary source on its views. It was WP:OR of you to claim that their review of the consensus claim literature was promoting climate change denial.Poodleboy (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm glad you're getting to understand what OR is. I'll try and explain further what I just said. Even though that would count as OR in the article if the source disagreed with what the Heartland Institute said we'd have some reason for further discussion to see what the problem was. But I see nothing like that. So I asked for a source that backs up what you say. Dmcq (talk) 07:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
You stated that HI says the same thing about themselves, yet you pointed to a headline link to a posting where neither the headline nor the content of the posting supports your statement.Poodleboy (talk) 09:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
As you should know, primary sources by a person or an organisation about itself are only acceptable if they are not unduly self-serving. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
They haven't produced any sources primary or secondary or self-serving or whatever. They're just for instance asserting that a close reading of Institutes page which calls global warming a myth will show they actually do subscribe to global warming. If the Institute was actually that bad at saying what they are in aid of they would have lost all their sponsors long ago. Anyway I think I should just wait for them to produce some source to back up what they say. Dmcq (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
It would definitely be helpful if HI would come out and explicitly state that they would be part of the consensus by the Doran and Zimmerman standard. The best I can find is that they state that most skeptics would be. And of course HI also claims to be skeptics and specificly of dangerous global warming. That is not quite owning it. If they owned that standard then they could not be classified as deniers without also abandoning the most direct 97% consensus claim. I'll keep looking.Poodleboy (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I may have just found it: "At issue is not whether the climate warmed since the Little Ice Age or whether there is a human impact on climate," [8] They do own the Doran standard, they don't even consider the warming or human impact at issue. Poodleboy (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Here, even more explicit, in discussing the two relevant Doran and Zimmerman questions "Who would disagree with those things?" The Heartland Institute is firmly part of the global warming consensus! [9] Poodleboy (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
No. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes!! Or, like HI, are you also critical of the Doran and Zimmerman methodology and criteria? Poodleboy (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
There is no way I can assume good faith when you produce rubbish like that after everything that has been explained to you. I shall stop responding unless you change the article or produce sources relevant to the article. Dmcq (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Do you have some kind of bias against HI embracing the consensus? HI clearly embraces the consensus standard. How is the HI position on climate change not relevant to the article? This is the solid evidence of their position on the science that we have been looking for. Poodleboy (talk) 00:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
BTW, I ended up using the 1st source I found. The second was actually a third party article that HI posted.Poodleboy (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the 97% consensus: If I agree with the consensus answer to the first question (risen temperatures) and disagree with the consensus answer to the second question (human contribution), I disagree with the consensus. No honest person in their right mind would describe this issue as "I agree with the consensus but I say that (something that contradicts the consensus)."
Please read Climate_change_denial#Taxonomy_of_climate_change_denial, especially the list of positions numbered 1 to 6. Flavor 3 of climate change denial is the Heartland flavor. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Evidently you did not read the Doran and Zimmerman questions. They used the scientific term of art "significant" for the human contribution. One can find the human contribution, not only statistically "significant", but even responsible for the whole long term trend, and still not consider the warming a serious problem. The 97% claim probably would not have been reached if Doran had tried to go for a stronger claim than significant. The supplemental material shows that many scientists had serious problems with the questions. The list of positions is irrelevant here, Heartland can be a true believer under the Doran and Zimmerman flavor and a denier under one of the others. In such a case, it isn't encyclopedic to call them a denier without specifying the flavor and the evidence. Note that in good faith, I specified the standard, I never claimed they met number 6, is that the 51% consensus? The would be part of the consensus by the first 5 criteria and even part of the 6th, although 6 doesn't capture their position well. Keep in mind that it is not coincidence that most people associate the "consensus" with the 97% standard, because that is what the believers have been pushing. It is intellectually dishonest suggest that a plethora of other beliefs get to slip through the door and inherit the 97% credibility. It is like the door to door Christians who evangelize the with the argument for the existence one supernatural being and then once you accept you find your spirit world is also populated with an equally omnipresent, if not omnipotent and perfect Satan, and thousands of angels and demons. I have no objection to HI being labeled deniers of a specifically specified consensus, as long as it is made clear that is not the 97% consensus and there is evidence to back up that claim of consensus.Poodleboy (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Let's make it simpler for you Hob. How is HI disagreeing with question two if their position is that they have no issue with a human impact on the climate? Here is the quote made I made easy to find in the source: "At issue is not whether the climate warmed since the Little Ice Age or whether there is a human impact on climate,". Please explain how you reach this conclusion "disagree with the consensus answer to the second question"? HI agrees with the 97% Doran and Zimmerman consensus. Poodleboy (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Please stop your OR and now you're doing coatracking as well. This seems to be some diatribe about the Doran and Zimmerman survey rather than anything about the Heartland Institute. As to the survey there seems to be no source drawing the inference you make and in that quote the Heartland Institute did not say how they would answer the questions or even what they themselves assert, they seem to be just arguing over possible problems with the survey. Dmcq (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Dmcq, you have basically admitted that HI is not a denier of the first 5 kinds, but only of the 6th kind, yet are unwilling to admit that HI is largely a part of the consensus or to qualify the denier name calling that you and others here want to engage in. How can you feel that is consonant with wikipedia's actual philosophy and goals?Poodleboy (talk) 10:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I still don't get it. Are you saying that Heartland accepts all the science but still
  • publishes lists of scientists denying it,
  • publishes documents denying it,
  • holds conferences for those who deny it,
  • heavily finances those who deny it,
  • makes slanderous campaigns against those who accept it,
  • and sends people to conferences in order to deny it?
Could it be that Heartland used to be part of the denial industry until recently but wants out now? Otherwise the whole thing sounds a tiny bit contradictory.
So, which word did I read wrong this time? --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
You got "denying" wrong, because you didn't qualify it. It depends on what is being denied. They have made scathing criticisms of the social science literature studying the level of consensus within the scientific community and how it is used. Nearly all their other skepticism would be of level 6 denial claims, in particular the model projection based attribution and fearmongering. The science is bearing out much of their skepticism as estimates of climate sensitivity to CO2 forcing keep coming down and the hiatus literature shows that the long term warming trend has remained low, and that internal variation driven by ocean modes account for both rapid warming like that of the 80s and 90s and periods of lower warming and even cooling like that of the mid-century cool period and the recent hiatus.Poodleboy (talk) 11:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
"I still believe in global warming, do you?" is level 6. Yeah right. Dmcq is right: you are trying to spin the article into reflecting your own ideas. That is not how we do things here. Please do that at Conservapedia or somewhere else. EOD. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I have to confess that I misread the "or" as a "but": "At issue is not whether the climate warmed since the Little Ice Age but whether there is a human impact on climate".
That was because the start of the sentence demands a "but", which was there in the original sentence but not in the quoted part. The complete quote, including the "but" part, is "At issue is not whether the climate warmed since the Little Ice Age or whether there is a human impact on climate, but whether the warming is unusual in rate or magnitude; whether that part of it attributable to human causes is likely to be beneficial or harmful on net, and by how much; and whether the benefits of reducing the human contribution will outweigh the costs, so as to justify public policies aimed at reducing it. The survey is silent on these questions.”"
Sorry for the unnecessary tangent. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanx for going back and reading it more carefully. There are those here that are more interested in finding ways of calling Heartland Instutute names like "denier" than in being encyclopedic. Poodleboy (talk) 10:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I have not 'basically admitted that HI is not a denier of the first 5 kinds', I have pointed out that what you are doing is OR and I also wasted some time on pointing out the problems with your inference about the Heartland Institute. You have completely mischaracterized what I said. As WP:OR says 'Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves.' Your 'analysis' comes to conclusions which oppose clearly stated ones in reliable sources, and your sources do not support what you are saying. Stop this WP:SOAPBOX of yours. Dmcq (talk) 11:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, got you confused with Hob again. I mistakenly thought you had said something other than making WP:OR accusations. That said, where would you assess the sources classify HI on the denial classification system? Poodleboy (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Hob, I see you actually put HI at 3 on the scale, how can you claim that given the source we already discussed in support of Doran question 2? I mistakenly assumed you had concluded number 6 was appropriate after I read the criteria.Poodleboy (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I see no relevance of my classifying the Heartland Institute according to some denial scale towards improving the article. If you can produce a source which seems to talk about classifying the institute according to some such scale then by all means come back and perhaps something related to that could be put in the article. Otherwise this discussion should not be on the talk page and is simply soapboxing your OR. There are sources which say it is involved in climate change denial. I have seen none saying or even straightforwardly implying it agrees with the consensus. Dmcq (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Neither have I "basically admitted" that. I think HI does not really care about which of the 6 pretend reasons for being against environmental market regulation they give. The real reason is, of course, their worship of free markets. So they can at will switch from any one flavor of denial to any other, and it does not really matter either to them or to me. What matters, as Dmcq says, are the reliable sources which say HI is involved in climate change denial. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
If you don't specify in what sense HI is involved in climate change denial, the reader will be confused that HI is also part of the 97% consensus. A reliable source would probably elaborate on the climate change denial and not just name call. They should get their say, but it should be attributed and specific. There is no reason that both HI's and the secondary sources positions can't be represented and attributed. Poodleboy (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
As long as you stick by your ridiculous strawman that the "97% consensus" is based only on the Doran/Zimmermann paper, and keep promoting the Heartland interpretation of that paper, I don't think this discussion is going anywhere. There are several studies using different if often overlapping descriptions of the consensus position, and different methodologies for assessing agreement with the consensus. They all arrive at close to, but not quite unanimous, consent for the consensus position. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
When making a specific statement like whether HI agrees with the scientific consensus on climate change, it helps to have a specific sources and criteria for what that consensus is. I think you will find that Anderegg doesn't have useful criteria and relies heavily on Doran and Zimmerman in its review of other attempts to assess the consensus, and somehow manages to mischaracterize Doran and Zimmerman and mistate the IPCC AR4 SPM statement. It may be best to have multiple attributed statements. Doran and Zimmerman is the cleanest to assess. I notice that you haven't been able to defend your revert of my better justified characterization of the source that was being used in the article. Can you assist in providing some other statements? Poodleboy (talk) 07:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Provide a reliable sources that conforms with the requirements of WP:OR that show what you are talking about. The requirements include that the source mentions the Heartland Institute or something very close to that. Your own analysis is inadmissible. There is no requirement in Wikipedia to provide explanations of the statements in reliable sources and normally such explanations are not provided. For instance proofs of theorems are not given unless the proof is itself notable. Dmcq (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Replacement/correction of the 1st statement of the global warming section, the lead may also have to be changed[edit]

Fortunately, we finally have a good source for HI's position on climate change. It had already been clear that they were part of the Doran/Zimmerman standard consensus, but we were only finding statements like this: "Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming also support those statements."[10] where the HI did not specificly agree with the standard. Now that we have a declarative statement of the truth of the Doran/Zimmerman criteria, we can correct the first part of the global warming section. Here is the proposed first few lines:

The Heartland Institute agrees with the scientific consensus on climate change as assessed in the Doran and Zimmerman 97% article[1][2] [3] but says that human activities are not driving climate change,[citation needed] the amount of climate change is not catastrophic and might even be beneficial,[4][5] and that the economic costs of trying to mitigate climate change exceed the benefits. [6] According to the New York Times, Heartland is "the primary American organization pushing climate change skepticism."[7]

I retain the citation needed, even though it may be a valid summary given one of the current sources. "not driving" and "significant" don't conflict. Poodleboy (talk) 02:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I have removed it as WP:OR. It is very obviously OR and you have been warned many times about that. Doing that is disruptive. Dmcq (talk) 06:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
What you have done is restored a text which you now know is wrong. That is not editing in good faith, it is tantamount to vandalism, now that you know it is wrong. The corrected version is well sourced, with plenty of supporting quotation in the citation, to see that the proposed text is correct. You are obviously biased, if you weren't you could be objective and just follow the evidence. You couldn't wait to discuss it, you had to revert first. You who have been arguing for summarizing and not quoting, are now going to say doing so is WP:OR? Prove it! Poodleboy (talk) 07:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
If you persist in trying to stick in your WP:OR you will eventually be blocked. Dmcq (talk) 07:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't know whether to take your threat seriously. Can you give examples of where you got more knowledgable people who were editing in good faith, blocked before? Reflect a bit on whether you are guilty of violating WP:OWN and WP:AGF. Poodleboy (talk) 08:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Well since you claim to be knowledgeable see WP:EXPERT and take note of section 2 in section 'General'. Dmcq (talk) 10:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
You keep trying to send me down bunny trails, there wasn't any new information in there. Poodleboy (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Poodleboy has been notified that Arbitration Enforcement applies. I think we're about ready for Arbitration enforcement at this point. --Ronz (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
You were ready at your first flyby revert. You obviously think you speak for the community.Poodleboy (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but if you are not just trolling to be blocked, please refrain from such comments. --Ronz (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
You were the one trolling. Why are you still not addressing the substance instead of other editors? Poodleboy (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I find Arbitration Enforcement to be of exceptional importance here. --Ronz (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Focused on the substance again I see. And if you were an involved admin like Raul654, you could block me yourself and get nary a slap on the hand.Poodleboy (talk) 23:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Intended or not, all this focus on me is trolling. Please stop. --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on whether the first statement of the proposed text is supported by the provided sources independently of any comments on whether you favor admitting that HI is part of the 97% Doran consensus. We already have known that HI self identifies as skeptics and routinely states that most skeptics would be part of the Doran consensus. This wouldn't be the first time that wikipedia would have had to step in and decided that it had to be objective instead of ruined by a biased WP:OWN collective.Poodleboy (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────This is not a discussion forum. What you have there is OR. The Heartland Institute make it clear they oppose the consensus [11], there is no OR with the current sentence and no reason to go on and on with your soapboxing. If you want to discuss matters like that do it on some forum about climate change. This talk page is for discussion related to improving the article. By the way the page [12] you are using in your 'analysis' is no longer available. Dmcq (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I think Ronz can speak for himself. We know how your standards tighten up when the truth becomes unconvenient. That source does not contradict the statement put forward here which represents the HI position on the Doran standard. Here is the statement from the source you think is relevant, the emphasis will be mine: "On the contrary, there is extensive evidence of scientific disagreement about many of the most important issues that must be resolved before the hypothesis of dangerous man-made global warming can be validated." Note that this HI statement makes it clear that they take no issue with the Doran statements which because they are not in the category they are disputing or that they think may skeptics would dispute: "At issue is not whether the climate warmed since the Little Ice Age or whether there is a human impact on climate" If you can't parse this, you shouldn't be editing or voting on scientific articles. Poodleboy (talk) 01:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
poodleboy, HI set out their position on the science of climate change here [13] 'Our Stance' Overwhelming scientific evidence suggests the greenhouse gas-induced global climate signal is so small as to be embedded within the background variability of the natural climate system and is not dangerous. This is clearly denying the consensus as assessed by the IPCC, whose reports (e.g. [14]) say inter alia that 'Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions ... are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century' and 'Continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems.' This seems sufficient to support the statement that you are trying to remove (with your WP:OR using an unrealistically narrow definition of the consensus), namely The Heartland Institute opposes the scientific consensus on climate change. TimOsborn (talk) 06:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
TimOsborn, The IPCC does not set out the consensus, and certainly not the consensus popularly touted as achieving 97% acceptance among scientists. The HI statement is not an unreasonable overstatement when you consider that the long term trend was still overwhelmed by internal variability both in the rapid warming of the 80s and 90s and in the recent slowdown in the trend. Natural forcings still account for a majority of the climate commitment at the current atmospheric composition (Wigley 2005). The GHGs have explanatory power for the long term global surface trend. None of this contradicts the Doran/Zimmerman 97% consensus. Note, that I was careful to specify the criteria applied. The legacy statement is misleading, if as you indicate, it secretly relies upon an unquantified IPCC "consensus" when the public has been lead to believe in a 97% consensus. I am open to HI being labeled as opposing a climate "consensus", if which consensus is clearly identified and distinguished from the 97% rhetoric. How would you specify it? Poodleboy (talk) 07:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
At issue is not whether the Heartland Institute agrees or disagrees with Doran and Zimmermann. The issue is that you are engaging in OR and soapboxing in your interpretation of what the Heartland Institute says. Notice I have used the words 'At issue is not whether' and it implies nothing other than what I have said. The Heartland web page is exactly the same in discussing the Doran and Zimmermann survey. It says "At issue is not whether the climate warmed since the Little Ice Age or whether there is a human impact on climate, but whether the warming is unusual in rate or magnitude; whether that part of it attributable to human causes is likely to be beneficial or harmful on net, and by how much; and whether the benefits of reducing the human contribution will outweigh the costs, so as to justify public policies aimed at reducing it. The survey is silent on these questions." That does not say anything about the Heartland Institutes stance on whether global warming is happening or whether there is a human impact. It say 'At issue is not whether' in relation to that part of their criticism of the Doran and Zimmermann survey. I have used that phrase in exactly the same sense. As WP:OR says "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research". Your conclusion is in no way supported by the source. If you can produce something that can be put in fine. However you are engaged in OR and disruption with your bad reasoning and soapboxing. Dmcq (talk) 11:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Your analogy fails Dmcq, because it doesn't correspond to the cited text. Your "or" includes both one side and its negation "agrees or disagrees". The Heartland statement's "or" does not have a proposition and its negation, it has climate warmed ... or ... human impact. It might be easier for you to see the difference if you replaced the "or" with an "and". "At issue is not whether the Heartland Institute agrees AND disagrees with Doran and Zimmerman" Constrast that with "At issue is not whether the climate warmed since the Little Ice Age AND whether there is a human impact on climate". Poodleboy (talk) 12:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
At issue is not whether the Heartland Institute agrees with Doran and Zimmerman etc. Now can you see the correspondence? Now will you stop your OR and soapboxing? Dmcq (talk) 12:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
No, because the HI statement goes on to state what the issues are, and in the course of that acknowledging both the warming and the human influence. I will highlight it here for you: "... but whether THE WARMING is unusual in rate or magnitude; whether THAT PART OF IT ATTRIBUTABLE TO HUMAN CAUSES is likely to be beneficial or harmful on net," Why should I stop when it is clear than I comprehend the text and you don't? Is it possible you are wrong about the WP:OR as well? Can you WP:OR survive so much lack of comprehesion? It would be strange if it wasn't at least modified in some way. Poodleboy (talk) 13:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Whether the Heartland Institute does believe the consensus, whether the sources you point at were meant by them in the way you indicate, whether sticking your conclusions into the article would be a benefit to humanity, none of these matter at all as it is all just your original research and we need reliable sources which state things in a reasonably clear fashion. You are engaging in OR and soapboxing. Dmcq (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The black knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail has nothing on you. Poodleboy (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Just stop the OR and soapboxing. Your reasoning just doesn't hold water never mind not being allowed by WP:OR. Dmcq (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to point out WP:DR at this point. The discussions here are well into WP:IDHT territory, without much better sources that eliminate the OR and SOAP concerns. --Ronz (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

What bit of WP:DR do you see as being of any use in this case? @Poodleboy:, is there any way of resolving this dispute which you would abide by if the decision went against you? Dmcq (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I think WP:DISENGAGE is the best approach here, but there may be others worth pursuing. --Ronz (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
It is strange that you would suggest that right when we finally are making some progress. A couple people show up who might be able to address some of the substance (Tim Osborn and Stephen Schulz), hopefully they will continue to interact, and we find out that the chief chanter of the WP:OR objection has not understood the substance (thanx to Dmcq for his help in this regard). Those who aren't addressing the substance might as well take a break.Poodleboy (talk) 06:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
If disengage is not an option then some other form of dispute resolution is needed. Which form of dispute resolution in WP:DR would you be happy to abide by? If for instance a WP:RfC was raised would you stop trying to put forward your own ides about this if the decision at the end of it rejected what you said? Dmcq (talk) 08:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
You have yet to make a case for your WP:OR allegations, stumbling over your understanding of the text. Wouldn't you want to do that before any dispute resolution? The only issue appears to be your willingness to revert without making a case for WP:OR other than merely alleging it. If I put the statement back in, you be willing leave it to see if someone else has an excuse to revert it and address the substance, they might be better at it. Poodleboy (talk) 09:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I have raised the dispute at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Poodleboy_at_The_Heartland_Institute. Dmcq (talk) 11:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Note that Dmcq has lied, stating that I don't provide sources, he did this less than 36 hours after we spent several comments parsing the sources I gave for my proposed text here. I also referenced a source in my response to Tim Osborne (he would know what Wigley 2005 is in the context of climate commitment.) We should keep on with our business, and ignore this liar. Poodleboy (talk) 11:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
We now have two weeks free from this. Plenty of time to find better sources that eliminate the OR and SOAP concerns. --Ronz (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
There are some citation needed tags in the article which need looking at but otherwise I don't see it. My concern was with the OR and SOAP they were trying to put in. Have you something in mind or think they did actually have some sort of point but didn't know how to express it properly or something like that? Dmcq (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". Q1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? Q2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures? 
  2. ^ Bast, Joe. "Heartland Replies to the Economist" (PDF). The Heartland Institute. At issue is not whether the climate warmed since the Little Ice Age or whether there is a human impact on climate, but whether the warming is unusual in rate or magnitude; whether that part of it attributable to human causes is likely to be beneficial or harmful on net, and by how much; and whether the benefits of reducing the human contribution will outweigh the costs, so as to justify public policies aimed at reducing it. The survey is silent on these questions. 
  3. ^ Pilkey Jr., Orrin H; Pilkey, Keith C. (2011). Global Climate Change: A Primer. Duke University Press. p. 48. ISBN 978-0822351092. 
  4. ^ "Instant Expert Guide: Global Warming" (PDF). Heartland Institute. Archived from the original (PDF) on December 1, 2006. Retrieved March 4, 2008. 
  5. ^ Riley E. Dunlap; Aaron M. McCright (2010). "Climate change denial: source, actors and strategies". In Constance Lever-Tracy. Routledge Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Routledge. p. 256. 
  6. ^ Bast, Joseph; Taylor, James M. (2015). "Global Warming: Not a Crisis". Heartland Institute. 
  7. ^ Gillis, Justin (May 1, 2012). "Clouds’ Effect on Climate Change Is Last Bastion for Dissenters". New York Times. Retrieved May 1, 2012. ...the Heartland Institute, the primary American organization pushing climate change skepticism... 

The Heartland Institute has updated their criticisms of this article[edit]

Sorry for that clickbait headline, but it seems the institute has published an article titled Wikipedia: Broken, Biased, and Corrupt which concerns this Wikipedia article. I randomly spotted it online and thought to post it here. I have no previous involvement with this page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Update: Ah OK, this seems like an update of a previous Feb 2016 blog post. But this time they have cited a bunch of sources for support. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Rather droll, don't think we've seen much of a surge of alternative reality meatpuppets trying to use these sources, but it's hard to tell. I particularly liked "Infogalactic Launches as Alternative to Biased Wikipedia, Lucas Nolan, Breitbart (Oct 10, 2016)" and "Useful Sites for More Research – Conservapedia (Examples of bias at Wikipedia)" Haven't tried clicking on these links, but rather suspect that they lack a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. . . dave souza, talk 20:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Infogalactic promises to be fun. Star lords, corporations policing their own articles with paid Admins, etc. And I think subjects controlling their biographies. But this is off-topic, sorry. See Jimbo's talk page archives. Doug Weller talk 20:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Gotta love Conservapedia's examples of bias in Wikipedia. Yes, we are biased towards objectively verified fact over ideologically motivated bullshit. Newsflash: this ain't changing. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Just had a look at Infogalactic. It looks to me like a bunch of young right wing narcissists have felt aggrieved by Wikipedia and copied it but written up their own bios to suit themselves better, no references needed :) As far as I can see they'll be offering strokes to contributors like slashdot. It'll be interesting seeing it morph into some alternative of Conservapedia if they manage to keep their interest up long enough. Dmcq (talk) 12:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I guess this is in line with Trump's idea of having his own TV show which will push his views. I think it is sad that people only look at stuff confirming their views - it seems to make them more and more extreme. People shhould look at stuff they disagree with rather than just following those who say it is biased and never looking at it. Dmcq (talk) 15:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
They do have a bit of a point in that most of the stuff here is about the more controversial things they do. That's a general problem in that people only write in newspapers and suchlike about the institute when they see something that will interest their readers and bad news is much more interesting than good news. There just aren't secondary sources that have shown an interest in anything very much good that the institute has done and they have been involved in some rather iffy things, thhat's what secondary sources have written about and that is what Wikipedias policies say should be in the article. They obviously know this as they say "When you make a change, be incremental — getting Wikipedia entries to stick is a long game — and keep an eye on your changes. If it is “changed back,” go to the “talk” section and convince the editors that your edits are fair, objective, independent, and properly sourced." Well if they can properly sourced then good for them but that really is the problem and it sounds like they hope their followers will just longtime pester and push their point of view rather than actually follow their words. Well I suppose we'll see. Dmcq (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
What do they do that's not controversial? They are known (outside of the US, at least) solely as a denial machine. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Everyone take a bow! If we weren't doing a good job, Heartland wouldn't notice us. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Signpost[edit]

Greeting, I am an In the Media editor for the Wikipedia Signpost and I ran across the Institute's October 19 press release. I am interested in any comments from either side on what the controversy is (and it appears to be long running), please feel free to discuss at my talk page or contact me via email at milo_went at yahoo dot com.--Milowenthasspoken 14:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)