UPDATE: Heartland Institute De-Lists Roger Pielke Jr. As A ‘Heartland Expert’

Posted on  

"UPDATE: Heartland Institute De-Lists Roger Pielke Jr. As A ‘Heartland Expert’"

UPDATE (5/10 3:15 pm): Heartland Institute de-listed Roger Pielke Jr. as a “Heartland Expert” today after Pielke asked them to make clear he has no affiliation with them in any way. Yet as recently as last night, in a response to this post, he asserted, “If they chose to highlight me as an expert, that is their business.” #FAIL. The other amazing thing is that Pielke knew about the listing as far back as May 4! Anyway, we’re now seeing an “exodus” of “Heartland experts,” since Benny Peiser also got de-listed after my post. Pielke’s original page is cached here. The delisted page is here.

Leo blog : The Heartland Institute conference billboard in Chicago

On day 6 of Heartland-gate, we visit their distinguished list of “Experts.”

As you know, the Heartland Institute is still unapologetic for its ad comparing the Unabomber to those who accept climate science or report on it. And they still insist on their website that “the most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.”

Their website also lists as “Heartland Experts” many of the most prominent advocates of climate science denial: John Christy, Joseph D’Aleo, Myron Ebell, Richard Lindzen, Bjorn Lomborg, Phelim McAleer, Ann McElhinney, Patrick Michaels, Steve Milloy, Lord Christopher Monckton, Marc Morano, Benny Peiser, Ian Plimer, Harrison Schmitt, Fred Singer, Fred Smith, Roy Spencer, Anthony Watts, and, last but not least, Roger Pielke.

Now, I’m sure you’re thinking, well, of course, Foreign Policy’s “Guide to Climate Skeptics” included Roger Pielke, Jr., but surely he isn’t an official “Heartland Expert.” And I say to you, stop calling me Shirley!

UPDATE: On his blog, Roger states he has “absolutely no relationship with Heartland — never have, never will. Period.” That’s great. Then he falsely claims that I said he is “official expert for Heartland” when I merely asked the obvious question. He amazingly asserts in the comments that he “looked at the webpage and there is nothing there that says that I am in anyway associated with them.” Anyone can look at the web page above and see that Heartland lists him as a “Heartland expert” — with his bio and photo. How anyone could have guessed this wasn’t official is, well, Pielke-esque. Glad to know it isn’t.

Even more amazingly, however, Pielke then goes on to say:

If they chose to highlight me as an expert, that is their business.

So he is apparently fine with how he appears on their website. I guess that makes him an unofficial Heartland Expert. Hope that clears things up.

UPDATE: Pielke claimed in a tweet to Prof. Scott Mandia that he “Learned of it on my blog ~48 hrs before Romm’s post.” But Mandia points out in a response that Pielke knew on May 4 (!). #FAIL

The point is that Pielke has known that Heartland listed him as a “Heartland expert” for a number of days now and had no problem with it whatsoever. Interestingly, the long-debunked, hard-core denier Benny Peiser appears to have gotten Heartland to remove him from the list within 12 hours of my post. Go figure!

Roger hasn’t explained how this ‘confusion’ happened in the first place. He is, after all, a great explainer of some things — like how he told the journal Nature in 2006, “Clearly, since 1970 climate change … has shaped the disaster loss record” but now attacks any climate scientist who says anything remotely similar, or how it is that he can endorse a 450 to 500 ppm target but refuse to spell out how we would hit that target while at the same time attacking anyone who actually does spell that out, or how these debunkings by Deltoid, James Annan, Stefan Rahmstorf, RealClimateBrad DeLong, to name a few, are all wrong.

I’m still guessing Pielke will be separating himself from Heartland about as fast as the Association of Bermuda Insurers and Reinsurers, XL Group, Renaissance Re, Allied World Assurance, State Farm Insurance, and some of their own staff!

This just in — Forecast the Facts reports the United Services Automobile Association’s (USAA), a Fortune-500 financial services company serving 8.8 million military members and their families, has decided to pull its support for the Heartland Institute:

A USAA spokesperson announced their decision on Facebook, saying, “In light of recent personnel departures at Heartland, we decided to end our support for the organization.”

Want to start a pool on how fast Roger gets them to take this page down?

NOTE: ThinkProgress is among several publications to have published documents attributed to the Heartland Institute and sent to us from an anonymous and then unknown source. The source later revealed himself. The AP worked to independently verify the documents and concluded, “The federal consultant working on the classroom curriculum, the former TV weatherman, a Chicago elected official who campaigns against hidden local debt and two corporate donors all confirmed to the AP that the sections in the document that pertained to them were accurate. No one the AP contacted said the budget or fundraising documents mentioning them were incorrect.” Heartland Institute has issued several press releases on the documents. See also “CAPAF General Counsel Responds To Heartland Institute.”

« »

34 Responses to UPDATE: Heartland Institute De-Lists Roger Pielke Jr. As A ‘Heartland Expert’

  1. squidboy6 says:

    When one considers what the rapid-right wing believes (smoking, assault weapons, nuclear weapons, and on and on) they are really going out on a rotten limb when they accuse people who believe in Climate Change to be murderers. What do they think of the guy who shot Rep. Giffords?

  2. prokaryotes says:

    Speaking of Lomborg, an article exploring the carbon tax and different assumptions, recently online at Slate. And he writes:

    “… rich countries will adapt to the negative impacts of global warming and exploit the positive changes, actually creating a total positive effect of global warming worth about one-half a percentage point of GDP.”
    http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/copenhagen_consensus_2012/2012/05/copenhagen_consensus_the_four_best_ways_to_fight_global_warming_.2.html

  3. Dano says:

    Shirley poor Roger can Gish gallop his way out of this, he does it so often.

    Best,

    D

  4. Mike Roddy says:

    Roger is the perfect embodiment of the Peter Principle, and would deserve our sympathy if the subject were not so important. We’ve all known people like Roger, who find themselves in the position they sought- college professor, in his case- and are overwhelmed by their inadequacy to the task. Students snooze, and colleagues run the other way when he appears at the faculty lounge.

    The man is toyed with when he dares appear at Realclimate. So what to do?

    Establish a career as someone who knows a smidgen of science, but chooses to use his pulpit to reassure people, not educate them.
    This makes him a stealth weapon for the oil companies, seemingly harmless and polite, but fulfilling his career path as best he can.

    Be careful about getting too deep. Eli Rabett grew to hang on Roger’s every word, out of macabre fascination.

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

      The denialist bestiary has a niche for every type of practitioner. I’m sure Pielke congratulates himself that he is not Bob Carter or Ian Plimer. One knows that various denialists receive their thirty pieces of silver in more or less roundabout ways, but it is the psychic rewards that fascinate. To stand absolutely outside your fraternity, with your reputation in tatters, yet keeping on, day after day, in the most unholy cause one can imagine. Inhabiting a milieu that is like a cross between Darth Vader’s Death Star and the Fuhrerbunker in Berlin, circa early 1945, give or take.

  5. EDpeak says:

    Joe, as someone who pays close attention to language I hoped you would comment on their phrase, “the most prominent advocates…”

    In fact the group they are referring to does not advocate [for] global warming; it is they whose policies, denialistm, delayism, etc, is pushing for more global warming.

    We are advocates for *action* to minimize future global warming.

    They are the ones who are (if not in words then in effect) “advocates for” global warming.

    Anyway, maybe some humor to laugh rather than cry…these “Unabomber” posters take psychosis (and I use the term seriously) of the denialists to new levels.

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

      The degree of crude psychological projection ever-present in denialist slurs makes one imagine that somewhere, deep in their subconscious, the denialist cappi know full well just what moral infamy they practise. One imagines, then, that they cannot, surely, be believers in a ‘just and vengeful God’, because the destruction of His Creation, the natural world, is considered by many to be the ‘Sin for which there is no forgiveness’. In that case, they are in deep strife.

      • Mike Roddy says:

        Here in the US, Mulga, members of the religious right believe that Armageddon hastens pod trips to Paradise. It’s a win-win for them- they get to enjoy their Ford Expeditions all the way to the end. The other side of the alliance is the psychopathic fossil fuel industry, who don’t care at all about the future.

        • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

          It is also why the ‘Christian Zionist’ Right, who used to be inclined to antisemitism (and may yet be, on the quiet)are so firmly attached to the most rejectionist and zealous elements in Israeli society. They fervently hope to see religious war break out in the Middle East so that the Apocalypse, the Rapture and Armageddon all come to pass. They are such sweet people.

  6. Sou says:

    Having been to Pielke’s blog, he is more upset at Dr Romm pointing out his association with Heartland Inst (listed as an expert) than he is with Heartland for claiming him as an expert. Let alone at what Heartland is saying about climate scientists and the majority of the population.

    That to me gives an indication of where Roger’s ‘heart’ really lies.

    I know he tweeted he would have cancelled attendance at the Heartland meeting had he been able to accept their invitation in the first place. But he seems to be struggling with just where his allegiances lie. Is it with climate science or with the science demonisers?

  7. Raul M. says:

    Joe,
    Just a note of thanks. A few years ago I noticed some changes that some were making about general things concerning the Earth. I thought why is that and what would that mean in the big picture.
    Things like the Arctic ice melt during summer. So I started looking on the net to see more and started reading your posts and the comments. I want to thank you for saying what it could mean and will probably mean in a clear and understandable way.
    Thanks again.
    From Raul.

  8. Orkneygal says:

    So, who are we to believe?

    Heartland or Dr Pielke?

    Both cannot be correct.

  9. Peter says:

    James Taylor- of the Heartland Institute wrote a stunning piece of nonsense yesterday over at Forbes magazine. In recapitulation of his inane musings he called Anthony Watts & Joe Bastardi ‘two highly respected Meteorologists’ who know more about climate then most climate scientists. So goes life in the fast lane.

  10. Albatross says:

    I justed posted this at Roger’s site:

    “Prof. Mandia,

    “1) Did you know at any point before Joe Romm’s post that you were listed as a Heartland Expert”

    I made this discovery last week after going to The Heartland website. So Roger Jr. has known about this since May 4th (last Friday):

    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.ca/2012/05/nyt-puts-hit-on.html?showComment=1336149054038

    At the time he (falsely) accused me of:

    “And even there, should you continue to make up lies about groups that you wish to accuse me of being associated with, those comments will be deleted as well.”

    I did not make up any lies as Roger Pielke Jr. suggests. In contrast, I find it hard to believe that Roger had no idea (from anyone) that his picture has been on the Heartland Inst.’s website until last Friday.

    The “groups” Roger is referring to here is the Heartland Institute.

    Roger has thus far refused to apologise for making that false allegation against me, despite me requesting that he do so on more than one occasion.

    As of this morning Roger Pielke Jr’s picture is still on the Heartland site.

    http://heartland.org/experts?page=9

    So has Roger contacted the Heartland Institute to ask them to remove his picture and to correct the record?

    I find it very puzzling that Roger is so very quick to accuse me and Romm of being liars and fabricating stuff, when in reality the only people telling lies and fabricating stuff in this instance is The Heartland Institute. How come Roger Pielke Jr. does not have a post up saying “Joseph Bast is a liar”? it is a fair question.”

    • Joe Romm says:

      Great comment. Roger has, thanks to you, known about Heartland listing him as a “Heartland expert” for nearly a week (!) and was perfectly fine with it, whereas Peiser had his name pulled within 12 hours of my post! That speaks volumes.

      I think 99% of people who fancy themselves climate experts would have asked Heartland to take down that page the minute they learned about it.

      • EDpeak says:

        As of 12:24pm eastern standard time, he is no longer listed at that url..it seems to be (2-column version of) alphabetical and the last few are

        R. Timothy Patterson
        Mr. Alfred Pekarek
        Ian Plimer
        Eric Posmentier
        Lars Powell

      • Albatross says:

        Hi Joe,

        Yes, Roger Pielke Jr. is also listed with other alleged “experts” such as Morano, Monckton, Ball, Watts, D’Aleo etc. So I would not be too flattered if I were Roger Pielke Jr.– Heartland can’t even identify an expert corectly. And Heartland has filed some of Roger’s posts and papers under their “Policy Documents” archive.

        Roger Pielke Jr. is clear directing his anger and vitriol at the wrong target. But perhaps that is altogether not surprising, because that he has failed to do so also reveals his bias.

        As I pointed out to Roger last week, he does not seem to undwerstand the correct meaning of “liar”. The only group that is likely guilty of lying is The Heartland Institute– specifically, listing people as their “experts” when they know that said expets have not agreed to be listed as such.

        Finally, I find it troubling that Roger Pielke Jr. is very quick to falsely(!) accuse others of fabrication and being liars, but then goes and does the very same thing himself. In fact, he seems to be in the habit of falsely accusing/labelling people as liars (from this thread):

        “Brian said…
        Albatross – our good ol’ Roger Jr. falsely accused me of lying about him in comment he posted to Revkin’s blog, and supplied misleading information to prove it (Andy helpfully highlighted his comment).”

        Encouraging that I am not the only one Roger Pielke Jr. has falsely accused of lying, but at the same time worrying that someone of his academic standing would continue to do so in public without consequence.

  11. Albatross says:

    I posted this at Eli Rabett’s place on 7 May:

    “Interested bunnies should use the search engine on The Heartland Inst.’s website. Specifically search for “Pielke Jr.”.

    One gets 71 hits, but only three seem to be attributed to Pielke Jr. What I find odd is that The Heartland Inst. has them archived under “Policy Documents”. This suggests is basing its policy on Pielke’s work and public musings.”

  12. SecularAnimist says:

    Professor Pielke, that’s one seriously tangled web you are weaving for yourself.

  13. OK, I’ll say it: Pielke is playing Schrödinger’s Cat regarding his relationship with Heartland.

    — frank

  14. Albatross says:

    Cross-posted from Roger Pielke Jr’s site– just in case my post fails to get posted on the appropriate thread or does not get posted at all.

    “This is an excerpt from a post I just submitted at Think Progress:

    “As I pointed out to Roger last week, he does not seem to undweerstand the correct meaning of “liar”. The only group that is likely guilty of lying is The Heartland Institute– specifically, listing people as their “experts” when they know that said expets have not agreed to be listed as such.

    Finally, I find it troubling that Roger Pielke Jr. is very quick to falsely(!) accuse others of fabrication and being liars, but then goes and does the very same thing himself. In fact, he seems to be in the habit of falsely accusing/labelling people as liars (from this thread):

    “Brian said…
    Albatross – our good ol’ Roger Jr. falsely accused me of lying about him in comment he posted to Revkin’s blog, and supplied misleading information to prove it (Andy helpfully highlighted his comment).””

    Encouraging that I am not the only one Roger Pielke Jr. has falsely accused of lying, but at the same time worrying that someone of his academic standing would continue to do so in public without consequence.”

    Roger says @47, “I stopped trying to post responses at Romm’s a long time ago after he simply deleted them.”

    Yet a critical post made by me here last week somehow disappeared into the ether of space, and we know for a fact that you read it because you (wrongly) chose to take strong exception to what I said and asccused me of fabrication and lying….just saying.

    As for me allegedly being “abusive” Roger, that is very rich coming from you. Surely, you jest? Let me remind you that you are the one accusing me of fabrication and telling lies, in addtion to other people. Then when repeatedly asked to apologise you refuse. I would argue that you are the one being abusive and belligerent.

    Moreover, I was not “demanding your correspondence” as you falsely alledge @40 above, now you are twisting and distorting my words Roger and I do not take kindly to that. For the record I said:

    “It would be most helpful and clarify matters if Roger shared his correspondence on this matter with his readers.”

    Roger, you need to take a very long and hard look in the mirror. That you elect to play these rhetorical games and make serious false accusations reflects very poorly not only on you, but your your employer (CIRES) too; not to mention setting an incredibly bad example for your students.

    Have a very nice day.”

  15. Albatross says:

    Cross-posted from Roger Pielke Jr’s site– just in case my post fails to get posted on the appropriate thread or does not get posted at all.

    “This is an excerpt from a post I just submitted at Think Progress:

    “As I pointed out to Roger last week, he does not seem to undwerstand the correct meaning of “liar”. The only group that is likely guilty of lying is The Heartland Institute– specifically, listing people as their “experts” when they know that said expets have not agreed to be listed as such.

    Finally, I find it troubling that Roger Pielke Jr. is very quick to falsely(!) accuse others of fabrication and being liars, but then goes and does the very same thing himself. In fact, he seems to be in the habit of falsely accusing/labelling people as liars (from this thread):

    “Brian said…
    Albatross – our good ol’ Roger Jr. falsely accused me of lying about him in comment he posted to Revkin’s blog, and supplied misleading information to prove it (Andy helpfully highlighted his comment).”

    Encouraging that I am not the only one Roger Pielke Jr. has falsely accused of lying, but at the same time worrying that someone of his academic standing would continue to do so in public without consequence.”

    Roger says @47, “I stopped trying to post responses at Romm’s a long time ago after he simply deleted them.”

    Yet a critical post made by me here last week somehow disappeared into the ether of space, and we know for a fact that you read it because you (wrongly) chose to take strong exception to what I said and asccused me of fabrication and lying….just saying.

    As for me allegedly being “abusive” Roger, that is very rich coming from you. Surely, you jest? Let me remind you that you are the one accusing me of fabrication and telling lies, in addtion to other people. Then when repeatedly asked to apologise you refuse. I would argue that you are the one being abusive and belligerent.

    Moreover, I was not “demanding your correspondence” as you falsely alledge @40 above, now you are twisting and distorting my words Roger and I do not take kindly to that. For the record I said:

    “It would be most helpful and clarify matters if Roger shared his correspondence on this matter with his readers.”

    Roger, you need to take a very long and hard look in the mirror. That you elect to play these rhetorical games and make serious false accusations reflects very poorly not only on you, but your your employer (CIRES) too; not to mention setting an incredibly bad example for your students.

    Have a very nice day.”

  16. Albatross says:

    Another cross post from Roger Pielke Jr’s blog– just in case it does not appear or gets “rejected”.

    “Roger,

    You continue directing your vitriol and outrage at the wrong Joe, it should be directed at Joseph Bast from Heartland for listing you as an “expert” for Heartland without asking. I find the asymmetry of your ire very troubling.

    “I have not asked HI to remove it, only to clearly state that if they want to list me as an expert, make sure that they also note that I have no affiliation.”

    I do not think you understand the purpose of their list. The “experts” that they have listed are clearly not a comprehensive list of experts in the field of climate science, for example. Their list does not include eminent scientists such as Hansen, Trenberth, Schmidt, Held, Emanuel, Santer, Dessler, Thorne, Mears, Stott, Betts, Bradley, Manabe, Weaver, Solomon et cetera.

    The Heartland list of experts is thus meant to give the impression (at least to the uninformed reader) that they have the support and/or can solicit advice from the “experts” listed. The purpose of that “expert” directory is thus clearly not to list the most respected, leading and eminent scientists in the field, at least for climate science, otherwise the aforementioned names would not have been excluded.

    So you now asking them to say that you have no affiliation with them defeats the point of listing you entirely and that is why they probably removed your profile from the list.

    They probably listed you because you come across as being a contrarian and give the distinct impression of having sympathy for “skeptics” and provide sound bites that “skeptics” like to propagate around the “skeptic” echo chamber. You just gave them another one with the title of this post…..oh well, it is your reputation that is going down the tubes.

    Now before moving this to the “rejected” file without due consideration, please consider the merit of each individual post. Thanks.”

    Albatross

  17. Chris Winter says:

    Sou wrote: “I know he tweeted he would have cancelled attendance at the Heartland meeting had he been able to accept their invitation in the first place.”

    So he did receive an invitation to this year’s Heartland conference?

    Just trying to clarify the situation in my own mind…

  18. Chris Winter says:

    EDpeak wrote: “As of 12:24pm eastern standard time, he is no longer listed at that url..it seems to be (2-column version of) alphabetical…”

    I captured the entire list at about 8:35 PDT this morning (but not the pictures), and he’s on that version.

    • Chris Winter says:

      FWIW, I put the list online at http://www.chris-winter.com/Digressions/HI_Fellows.html

      I corrected a few mistakes; others I left. The most interesting one is that Marc Morano is still listed as Communications Director for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. He left that post in spring, 2009.

      • prokaryotes says:

        If there would be the Top 10 list of the weirdest things of the climate denial machine “achievements”…

        This would has a high probability to entering:

        “Marc Morano as Communications Director for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee”

  19. John Mashey says:

    1) They aren’t very good at updating their list. At least one person listed is deceased, sort of like Fred Singer’s claim of Frederick Seitz as Chairman after he had died, although only for 2 months, not 2 years.

    2) Pielke was listed in the 2009 “Heartland Legislator’s Guide to Global Warming Experts,” see PDF @ Fake science … pp.51-52.

    Or, see The Complete Guide, p.23.