'Fear of science' at root of journalists' critique of think tank

OneNewsNow contacted The Heartland Institutefor reaction.

"The Associated Press is always attempting to criticize The Heartland Institute's position and activities regarding climate science – [and] that's because they fear the science," said James Taylor, senior fellow for environment and energy policy at The Heartland Institute.


"One would think that The Associated Press – or any educational organization or people in general – would celebrate groups performing the scientific method and discussing science based upon fact and … skeptical review of asserted claims," he continued. "But [AP] isn't interested in scientific truth or the scientific method. [Rather] they're interested in their left-leaning propaganda." https://onenewsnow.com/science-tech...at-root-of-journalists-critique-of-think-tank The Heartland Institute is right on regarding climate change and global warming. The AP is trying to promote one view and bash the other. The Heartland uses correct scientific methods.

 

It is sad that some use their so called consensus to attempt to silence real scientific evidence and inquiry into a matter. Those who silence others or use third party sources to label opposition as anti science or pseudoscience and thus censor it or its sources are themselves simply closed minded bigots not wanting to see any contradiction to their world view.

 

Just more crackpottery from right wing nuts.

Science is done through the process of publication and peer review. That they can't get their crackpottery published in respectable journals, isn't the fault of the media.

 

I looked at their site and 67% of their funding comes from 'Foundations', but it doesn't say what they are. Does anyone have any info? Who's paying them?

 

So you are completely unaware of what is going on. To be expected.

 

Actually Heartland is real science and they have no problem getting their info published. In fact the AP was complaining how successful we are at getting the truth out there. It is in fact the so called self identified pro science consensus that is wrong here and through crackpot organizations and the closed minded who use them such as media bias fact check that are the closed minded bigots here.

 

Can you answer my question above? Who's paying them?

 

We are. https://www.heartland.org/
Learn more about who we are >

We the people fund them as they are a highly respected non profit.

 

I looked at that, hence my question. So you're being evasive and therefore seems like a special interest group ................ no value.

 

You sound like MBFC and their lackeys. As if non profit organizations that accept tax exempt contributions from the public are a special interest group of no value. That makes zero sense considering how many schools, libraries, hospitals, and museums fit in under that category.

 

So answer the question, who's paying bills?

 

You could have found this with any effort at all.
The Heartland Institute is a national nonprofit public policy research and educational organization based in Arlington Heights, Illinois. It is tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. It is privately supported and receives no funds from any government at any level, domestic or foreign, nor does it perform any government or other contract work.

During 2016, The Heartland Institute raised approximately $5.5 million in support from approximately 5,000 individual, foundation, and corporate supporters. Its 2016 income came from the following sources: Foundations 67%, individuals 19%, corporations 11% . No corporate donor contributes more than 5 percent of its total receipts.

The Heartland Institute’s books are audited annually by the accounting firm of Tighe, Kress, & Orr, PC. You can review our latest audit here and our most recent IRS Form 990 here.

People contribute to The Heartland Institute because they share our belief that better information and understanding can improve public policies in such important areas as education, environmental protection, and health care. For 33 years, Heartland authors have discovered and promoted free-market solutions to social and economic problems.

The Heartland Institute enforces policies that limit the role donors may play in the selection of research topics, peer review, and publication plans of the organization. These policies ensure that no Heartland researcher or spokesperson is subject to undue pressure from a donor. We do not take positions in order to appease or avoid losing support from individual donors. We have, in fact, a long record of standing behind our research even when it means losing the support of major donors.

Heartland does not make public the names of its donors. The reasons we adopted that policy are presented here. For corrections and replies to false and inaccurate statements about our funding sources, please visit our Reply to Our Critics page. https://www.heartland.org/about-us/funding/

 

Heartland



WHAT “science”?

The science of obfuscation?

The science of cherry picking?

Or the science of astroturfing whilst taking money from Big Oil and the fossil fuel industry?

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute

Heartland is a KNOWN recipient of monies from Exxxon

 

Heartland doesn’t name its donors and no one corporation can fund more than 5% of Heartland’s total donations in a year. Heartland is the go to think tank on matters of science.

 

It is only the go to for science for those who want to buy the results they like

Tell me how they meet any kind of standard when it comes to science and how you know it is “good” science

 

Really? Which journals are they publishing in? Who is peer reviewing the publications? Who is authoring these publications?

Are they doing systematic reviews of published literature or is it original research?

 

Good science as in science that fits into your narrative? All others are bad science?

 

Isn't that the claim you are making also? Given there are far more research papers and studies that tend to be more toward the side of human activity contributing to a warming climate - wouldn't a reasonable person state that it could be a possibility rather than dismissing it out-of-hand as the OP is trying to do?

 

There is a reason for that. That's where all the government money is for research.

 

Oh? Is THAT your criteria?

Know what a systematic review of literature is?

Know what peer review means?

Because as far as I can determine the Heartland institute does not understand these things

 

As opposed to all of the massive funding for disinformation coming from the fossil fuel industry

 

A virtual drop in the bucket compared to what government has spent on all of this. Your talking point is not factual but about feelings.

 

Got proof?

 

If your hypothesis is that scientists can be bought - then you have to agree that ALL scientists can be bought - not just the one's you disagree with. So at best, you would have to say that you didn't trust any data from anyone.

But claiming that humans have no impact on the environment or climate of what is basically a closed system would violate the laws of physics - so anyone making that claim would have to be seriously distrusted.