Heart of the matter


The Heartland Institute‘s climate conference reveals the motives of global-warming sceptics.

Nature 475, 423–424 (28 July 2011) doi:10.1038/475423b
Published online 27 July 2011

Watermelons

Watermelons - green on the outside, red on the inside

It would be easy for scientists to ignore the Heartland Institute’s climate conferences. They are curious affairs designed to gather and share contrarian views, in which science is secondary to wild accusations and political propaganda. They are easy to lampoon — delegates at the latest meeting of the Chicago-based institute in Washington DC earlier this month could pick up primers on the libertarian writings of Russian–American novelist Ayn Rand, who developed the philosophical theory of objectivism, and postcards depicting former US vice-president Al Gore as a fire-breathing demon. And they are predictable, with environmentalists often portrayed as the latest incarnation of a persistent communist plot. “Green on the outside, red on the inside,” said one display. “Smash the watermelons!”

So why does Nature this week devote two pages to such absurdities? We now have more than two decades of evidence that closing our eyes will not make the climate sceptics go away. Instead, in the United States at least, they have cemented their propaganda into a broader agenda that pits conservatives of various stripes against almost any form of government regulation. The sceptics like to present the battlefield as science, but, as the News Feature on page 440 makes clear, the fight is, in fact, a violent collision of world views.

More (Click here)

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Heart of the matter

  1. David Wilson says:

    the latest controversy around Monnett & Gleason’s polar bear research is carrying on with very little reference to the reports in question, here they are fyi: http://www.alaska.boemre.gov/ess/Poster%20Presentations/MarineMammalConference-Dec2005.pdf and in Polar Biology in 2006: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/documents/bbg_20110717_dead_polar_bears.pdf

    Polar Biology is a peer reviewed journal and I doubt that Monnett & Gleason are very far off the mark

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s