THEREโS a section on the Heartland Instituteโs website pointing readers to โStuff We Wish We Wroteโ.
After events over the last year or so, the chaps at the fossil fuel-funded โthink tankโ might want to add a new section with the title โStuff We Wish We Hadnโt Wroteโ.
The Heartland Institute, for those who donโt know, is a Chicago-based group promoting any view or position that argues we shouldnโt do anything about human-caused climate change. They run campaigns, hold conferences, write op-eds in the media and pay contrarian scientists.
Right there on the think-tankโs homepage, the group proudly displays a quote from The Economist magazine describing Heartland as โThe world's most prominent think-tank promoting scepticism about man-made climate change.โ
Yet as is the case with most things Heartland says about climate change, things are not always as they seem. Heartlandโs boastful quote is taken out of context and comes from this article in The Economist, documenting a spectacular own goal by Heartland.
Heartland, The Economist wrote, had lost an estimated $825,000 in funding after running a billboard campaign that equated acceptance of human-caused global warming to the values of serial killer Ted โUnabomberโ Kaczynski.
So when The Economist was describing Heartland as a prominent think-tank promoting climate science denial, it wasnโt doing it in a good way. No wonder then that Heartland didnโt hyperlink the quote.
This brings us to Heartlandโs most recent example of self-aggrandizing โ implying the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) thinks theyโre awesome because it translated two of Heartlandโs reports, only to be told by aforementioned academy to apologise for misrepresenting what they had actually done. Here are the nuts and bolts of the story. On June 11, Heartland released a statement detailing how CAS had translated two volumes of its NIPCC reports โ Climate Change Reconsidered.
y7l!~~_7.JPG "jonnjenn"){kind=avatar}
