The Heartland Institute’s recent Unabomber billboard and accompanying essay was filled with false allegations and errors, continuing Heartland’s long history of dishonesty.
The illegally hacked and published CRU emails do not contain enough context to draw any firm conclusions about much of anything – real investigations, where complete records are examined and the principles are interviewed about meetings, phone conversations, and white-board conversations are required. And all such investigations have found that the so-called Climategate emails show no evidence of misconduct or conspiracy.
After two years of fermenting in the back of the fridge, the Climategate hacker pulled out a rank and moldy pile of leftover emails out just in time for the second anniversary of the original illegal CRU email release.
Today, the Washington Times ran an op-ed by science-denier-for-hire Steve Milloy titled “2012 GOP guide to the climate debate.” Based on the number of errors and irrelevancies masquerading as serious concerns I discovered while reading it, the Washington Times should have titled the op-ed “How to lie to voters about climate disruption.” Here’s a brief […]
As a result of the unauthorized publication of nearly 1100 private emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in November, 2009, five separate inquiries were empaneled to look into whether or not the CRU researchers had committed research misconduct, broke Freedom of Information laws, or inappropriately biased the results of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report […]
For the second time in two weeks, an investigation has found that there was neither a conspiracy to deceive the public nor any scientific misconduct present in the scientific research of the scientists of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA). These scientists were at the center of the controversy […]
Allow me to present you with two quotes from Representative Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), one from March 2007 and one from December 2009: [T]he Administration is allegedly curbing Federal scientists from presenting scientific findings that are at odds with its policies. Before we start screaming “McCarthyism,” we should examine how little merit these accusations actually have. […]