In an emotional series of Twitter posts on Sept. 27, meteorologist Eric Holthaus vowed to give up flying in response to the United Nation’s latest statement on climate change.
“We all have to do everything we can, every day to reverse carbon dioxide emissions. There is no other way that makes sense,” Holthaus tweeted.
Holthaus’s sacrifice embodies a message that scientists have been urging the world to consider since 1990. In its latest report, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said it is more certain than ever (95 percent) that the Earth is headed toward a future of disastrous weather, and only a rapid reduction in greenhouse gas emissions can reverse it.
Another report, representing the work of nearly 50 scientists, comes to a different understanding: human effect on climate is likely to be small relative to natural variability, and warming (if any) may benefit the planet.
Same Evidence, Opposite Conclusions
How do two examinations of the same evidence draw such different conclusions? According to the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), “The IPCC is misleading the scientific community, policymakers, and the general public by telling only half the story.”
It’s a bold claim—considering that the IPCC’s forecast involves the work of thousands of scientists in hundreds of research institutes around the world, and is endorsed by the most highly esteemed science-based organizations. But according to NIPCC, they have the facts to back it up.
The Heartland Institute
Reports are available online picking apart NIPCC’s reasoning and methodology, but much more space is dedicated to defaming its publisher, the Heartland Institute—a libertarian free market, nonprofit based in Chicago.
Heartland bills itself with a quote form the Economist calling it the “world’s most prominent think-tank promoting skepticism about man-made climate change.” In addition to publishing the NIPCC, and hosting an International Climate Change Conference, Heartland has its hands in other projects designed to turn public perception against prevailing climate wisdom. One notable example is a short-lived electronic billboard campaign in Chicago from May 2012, linking climate change believers with Ted, the “Unabomber,” Kaczynski.
To critics, Heartland is dangerous—an organization peddling pseudo-science used to undermine a scientific consensus calling for urgent change.
According to Jim Lakely, communications director for Heartland Institute, the misconception of climate change skeptics is born of a lack of fair publicity.
“If many Americans are under the impression that there is no credible science that calls into question the hypothesis of catastrophic, man-caused climate change, perhaps the media is largely responsible by not reporting it,” Lakely said in an email.
Credibility
Heartland believes climate science is up for debate, but the other side is not interested in participating.
The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) did not respond to a request for an interview, and the David Suzuki Foundation responded that it does not comment on such matters because the scientific community has already reached a consensus.
According to a September 2013 Greenpeace report, “Dealing in Doubt,” Heartland’s experts are little more than shills for the oil and coal industries. The environmental group accuses Heartland of dealing in the same techniques the tobacco industry used to delay policy changes in the 1990s.
Heartland’s history offers critics some easy targets. A previous Heartland campaign accused the public health community of exaggerating the risks of cigarette smoke, and a past donor list that includes Phillip Morris, Exxon Mobil, and enterprises tied to the oil baron Koch brothers adds further fuel to the flame.
Greenpeace and DeSmog Blog—a group dedicated to “clearing the PR pollution that clouds climate sciences”—both claim evidence that the specter of corporate funding still haunts Heartland, but the organization strongly disputes these allegations.
According to Lakely, “The NIPCC report was funded by family foundations. No corporate money was used at all. In fact, Heartland is largely funded by foundations and individuals, not corporations.”
Heartland’s current policy of concealing donor identities makes Lakely’s statements difficult to verify, but the group maintains that its analysis is the work of independent scientists. In its view, NIPCC is David, fighting against a much more well-funded Goliath.
Friends Read Free