In 2012 Heartland got $7.4 million from private donations for climate related activities.
Meanwhile, climate alarmism received multiple BILLIONS from governments and other sources.
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl...
Heartland has 128 fellows that are climate experts, these include some of the biggest names in science, such as:
Syun-Ichi Akasofu
John Christy
Freeman Dyson
Ian Clark
Richard Lindzen
Patrick Michaels
Willie Soon
Roy Spencer
S. Fred Singer
Nir Shaviv
Heartland Institute is skeptical of man-made Global Warming and have publish many reports that support there reasons. That alone makes them much more reliable than the IPCC which has published one alarmist embarrassment after another.
-----------------------
I find it funny that denialists claim that climatologists like James Hansen and Michael Mann are in it for the money when the Heartland Institute can make them instant billionaires. And don't insult my intelligence by claiming that the Heartland Institute is cash starved. What costs more? Ferraris for a few former tobacco company scientists, or satellites and thousands of weather stations? The oil industry has enough money that if the Heartland Institute asked for lore money to pay off James Hansen and Michael Mann, they would get it.
Heartland has received a lot of money from Exxon to promote the denier propaganda Most of their membership are self proclaimed climate skeptics and some past members are deniers as well as self proclaimed climate scientists with no climate education
Their position and policies have no credibility towards real climate science
Heartland received monies from Phillip Morris to deny that second hand smoke was harmful. They have received monies from both Exxon and Koch to deny GW/climate change They will probably tell us next that bacon is good for our arteries.
More... http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-inst...
This, like the previous post from the same source, is yet another attempt to poison the well, to eliminate opposing voices from the debate. The credibility of Heartland is not the issue. The only things that matter are the strengths of the arguments presented, and whether the predictions made based on the hypothesis are validated by empirical data.
It is an attempt to distract from the weak science and invalid arguments that prop up the global warming hypothesis. It is anti-scientific.
This is what happens when a real scientist reviews the 'science' behind global warming:
"Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it. The CO2-climate hysteria is...propagated by people who are in it for lots of money, attention and power."
--Klaus-Eckart Puls, German physicist and meteorologist
On climate science?
The same as they were on tobacco safety
Let us open this question up to intelligent people, also.
