Talk:Heartland Institute/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

It does no such thing -Stephen Schulz

Someone did not read the source. Your opinion is irrelevant. Just ask Dmcq. Poodleboy (talk) 04:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

We're supposed to paraphrase, not just copy. The problem with just taking the word skeptical out of context is that in a scientific context it means a questioning attitude which ensures fact checking is done properly, whereas its use in climate change has come to mean disbelief or even denier. It is pretty certain the latter meaning is meant here as they talk about it in the context of trying to confuse the public and delay action. As the source says "If you read a statement about climate change with the name of any of the above-mentioned organizations attached, you should do so with the understanding that you are most likely reading global-warming denier propaganda". Saying 'oppose' makes it clear what is meant. Dmcq (talk) 10:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

What part of the source are you "paraphrasing" with "disagrees with the consensus on climate change"? Keep in mind WP:OR. That is quite a leap you are taking from "disbelief" to "denier", and that "skeptical" means something different in climate change. Keep in mind that much so called "denier propaganda" does not disagree with the consensus on climate change, for instance citing model diagnostic literature, or reports of new understanding not captured in the models, or reports of record levels of sea ice in the southern ocean. Poodleboy (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Poodleboy: I agree with Dmcq. Your use of skepticism takes the source out of context and changes the meaning. Jim1138 (talk) 11:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

There is more support for skepticism in the source than for "disagrees with the consensus on climate change". The source is also not very specific to Heartland, generalizing over several organizations. Poodleboy (talk) 11:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Well I'd prefer 'opposes' to 'disagrees with', for all I know they might agree with it but simply be denying it so they get paid, but I'm pretty certain your 'promotes skepticism' is too ambiguous without more context. It is usual to anthropomorphize organisations as having feelings which directly reflect what they do so disagree is okay though. Dmcq (talk) 13:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and changed it to "opposes". "Global warming deniers, on the other hand, have a different agenda: they seek a "truth" according to their clients' needs or according to their political beliefs." "If you read a statement about climate change with the name of any of the above-mentioned organizations attached, you should do so with the understanding that you are most likely reading global warming denier propaganda." --Ronz (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Dmcq (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

It is important to be thankful, but it would be more helpful it the source supported opposition to the consensus on climate change. Where does the source claim opposition to the consensus on climate change. How is it defining the consensus and climate change. After all "denial" is a rather imprecise term. HI is skeptical of the extreme claims of danger and urgency, but that is hardly the consensus. One way to judge whether the source supports the statement is whether you could reasonably put those words in the sources mouth, fully attributed. Just stating a change to "opposes", rather understates the differences in the texts.Poodleboy (talk) 23:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Poodleboy that "opposes" is too weak ("rejects" or "dismisses" would be more accurate), but it's not that big a deal. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The paragraph before explains climate change denial saying "The global warming denial lobby takes advantage of this and promotes the views of an extreme minority to make it appear there is no scientific consensus on global warming and the human role in climate change". The Heartland Institute's own top page for their Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy says 'There is No “Scientific Consensus” on Global Warming' so they are pretty clear on the subject. I guess we could just say they promote climate change denial and remove the bit saying they acknowledge it is happening. Which would be reasonable as another of their documents Global Warming: Not a Crisis says it has stopped. Dmcq (talk) 10:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Bad guess, if you read the article entitled There is No “Scientific Consensus” on Global Warming, you will see that it is a critique of the social science claims that there is a consensus, not of the science of climate change. HI appears to disagree that global warming is a problem, but one does not need to believe that global warming is a problem or that there is a consensus to be part of the consensus as measured by the social science polls. Poodleboy (talk) 10:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

We have reliable sources saying one thing and we have the Heartland Institute which seems pretty definitely to say the same thing about themselves so I really don't see that we need a discussion about the matter. If you have a source that says otherwise please produce it. Dmcq (talk) 12:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The Heartland Institute is a primary source on its views. It was WP:OR of you to claim that their review of the consensus claim literature was promoting climate change denial.Poodleboy (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you're getting to understand what OR is. I'll try and explain further what I just said. Even though that would count as OR in the article if the source disagreed with what the Heartland Institute said we'd have some reason for further discussion to see what the problem was. But I see nothing like that. So I asked for a source that backs up what you say. Dmcq (talk) 07:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

You stated that HI says the same thing about themselves, yet you pointed to a headline link to a posting where neither the headline nor the content of the posting supports your statement.Poodleboy (talk) 09:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

As you should know, primary sources by a person or an organisation about itself are only acceptable if they are not unduly self-serving. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

They haven't produced any sources primary or secondary or self-serving or whatever. They're just for instance asserting that a close reading of Institutes page which calls global warming a myth will show they actually do subscribe to global warming. If the Institute was actually that bad at saying what they are in aid of they would have lost all their sponsors long ago. Anyway I think I should just wait for them to produce some source to back up what they say. Dmcq (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

It would definitely be helpful if HI would come out and explicitly state that they would be part of the consensus by the Doran and Zimmerman standard. The best I can find is that they state that most skeptics would be. And of course HI also claims to be skeptics and specificly of dangerous global warming. That is not quite owning it. If they owned that standard then they could not be classified as deniers without also abandoning the most direct 97% consensus claim. I'll keep looking.Poodleboy (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I may have just found it: "At issue is not whether the climate warmed since the Little Ice Age or whether there is a human impact on climate," [1] They do own the Doran standard, they don't even consider the warming or human impact at issue. Poodleboy (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Here, even more explicit, in discussing the two relevant Doran and Zimmerman questions "Who would disagree with those things?" The Heartland Institute is firmly part of the global warming consensus! [2] Poodleboy (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

No. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes!! Or, like HI, are you also critical of the Doran and Zimmerman methodology and criteria? Poodleboy (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

There is no way I can assume good faith when you produce rubbish like that after everything that has been explained to you. I shall stop responding unless you change the article or produce sources relevant to the article. Dmcq (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you have some kind of bias against HI embracing the consensus? HI clearly embraces the consensus standard. How is the HI position on climate change not relevant to the article? This is the solid evidence of their position on the science that we have been looking for. Poodleboy (talk) 00:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

BTW, I ended up using the 1st source I found. The second was actually a third party article that HI posted.Poodleboy (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the 97% consensus: If I agree with the consensus answer to the first question (risen temperatures) and disagree with the consensus answer to the second question (human contribution), I disagree with the consensus. No honest person in their right mind would describe this issue as "I agree with the consensus but I say that (something that contradicts the consensus)."

Please read Climate_change_denial#Taxonomy_of_climate_change_denial, especially the list of positions numbered 1 to 6. Flavor 3 of climate change denial is the Heartland flavor. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Evidently you did not read the Doran and Zimmerman questions. They used the scientific term of art "significant" for the human contribution. One can find the human contribution, not only statistically "significant", but even responsible for the whole long term trend, and still not consider the warming a serious problem. The 97% claim probably would not have been reached if Doran had tried to go for a stronger claim than significant. The supplemental material shows that many scientists had serious problems with the questions. The list of positions is irrelevant here, Heartland can be a true believer under the Doran and Zimmerman flavor and a denier under one of the others. In such a case, it isn't encyclopedic to call them a denier without specifying the flavor and the evidence. Note that in good faith, I specified the standard, I never claimed they met number 6, is that the 51% consensus? The would be part of the consensus by the first 5 criteria and even part of the 6th, although 6 doesn't capture their position well. Keep in mind that it is not coincidence that most people associate the "consensus" with the 97% standard, because that is what the believers have been pushing. It is intellectually dishonest suggest that a plethora of other beliefs get to slip through the door and inherit the 97% credibility. It is like the door to door Christians who evangelize the with the argument for the existence one supernatural being and then once you accept you find your spirit world is also populated with an equally omnipresent, if not omnipotent and perfect Satan, and thousands of angels and demons. I have no objection to HI being labeled deniers of a specifically specified consensus, as long as it is made clear that is not the 97% consensus and there is evidence to back up that claim of consensus.Poodleboy (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Let's make it simpler for you Hob. How is HI disagreeing with question two if their position is that they have no issue with a human impact on the climate? Here is the quote made I made easy to find in the source: "At issue is not whether the climate warmed since the Little Ice Age or whether there is a human impact on climate,". Please explain how you reach this conclusion "disagree with the consensus answer to the second question"? HI agrees with the 97% Doran and Zimmerman consensus. Poodleboy (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your OR and now you're doing coatracking as well. This seems to be some diatribe about the Doran and Zimmerman survey rather than anything about the Heartland Institute. As to the survey there seems to be no source drawing the inference you make and in that quote the Heartland Institute did not say how they would answer the questions or even what they themselves assert, they seem to be just arguing over possible problems with the survey. Dmcq (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Dmcq, you have basically admitted that HI is not a denier of the first 5 kinds, but only of the 6th kind, yet are unwilling to admit that HI is largely a part of the consensus or to qualify the denier name calling that you and others here want to engage in. How can you feel that is consonant with wikipedia's actual philosophy and goals?Poodleboy (talk) 10:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I still don't get it. Are you saying that Heartland accepts all the science but still

• publishes lists of scientists denying it,
• publishes documents denying it,
• holds conferences for those who deny it,
• heavily finances those who deny it,
• makes slanderous campaigns against those who accept it,
• and sends people to conferences in order to deny it?

Could it be that Heartland used to be part of the denial industry until recently but wants out now? Otherwise the whole thing sounds a tiny bit contradictory.

So, which word did I read wrong this time? --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

You got "denying" wrong, because you didn't qualify it. It depends on what is being denied. They have made scathing criticisms of the social science literature studying the level of consensus within the scientific community and how it is used. Nearly all their other skepticism would be of level 6 denial claims, in particular the model projection based attribution and fearmongering. The science is bearing out much of their skepticism as estimates of climate sensitivity to CO2 forcing keep coming down and the hiatus literature shows that the long term warming trend has remained low, and that internal variation driven by ocean modes account for both rapid warming like that of the 80s and 90s and periods of lower warming and even cooling like that of the mid-century cool period and the recent hiatus.Poodleboy (talk) 11:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

"I still believe in global warming, do you?" is level 6. Yeah right. Dmcq is right: you are trying to spin the article into reflecting your own ideas. That is not how we do things here. Please do that at Conservapedia or somewhere else. EOD. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I have to confess that I misread the "or" as a "but": "At issue is not whether the climate warmed since the Little Ice Age but whether there is a human impact on climate".

That was because the start of the sentence demands a "but", which was there in the original sentence but not in the quoted part. The complete quote, including the "but" part, is "At issue is not whether the climate warmed since the Little Ice Age or whether there is a human impact on climate, but whether the warming is unusual in rate or magnitude; whether that part of it attributable to human causes is likely to be beneficial or harmful on net, and by how much; and whether the benefits of reducing the human contribution will outweigh the costs, so as to justify public policies aimed at reducing it. The survey is silent on these questions.”"

Sorry for the unnecessary tangent. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanx for going back and reading it more carefully. There are those here that are more interested in finding ways of calling Heartland Instutute names like "denier" than in being encyclopedic. Poodleboy (talk) 10:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I have not 'basically admitted that HI is not a denier of the first 5 kinds', I have pointed out that what you are doing is OR and I also wasted some time on pointing out the problems with your inference about the Heartland Institute. You have completely mischaracterized what I said. As WP:OR says 'Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves.' Your 'analysis' comes to conclusions which oppose clearly stated ones in reliable sources, and your sources do not support what you are saying. Stop this WP:SOAPBOX of yours. Dmcq (talk) 11:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, got you confused with Hob again. I mistakenly thought you had said something other than making WP:OR accusations. That said, where would you assess the sources classify HI on the denial classification system? Poodleboy (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Hob, I see you actually put HI at 3 on the scale, how can you claim that given the source we already discussed in support of Doran question 2? I mistakenly assumed you had concluded number 6 was appropriate after I read the criteria.Poodleboy (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I see no relevance of my classifying the Heartland Institute according to some denial scale towards improving the article. If you can produce a source which seems to talk about classifying the institute according to some such scale then by all means come back and perhaps something related to that could be put in the article. Otherwise this discussion should not be on the talk page and is simply soapboxing your OR. There are sources which say it is involved in climate change denial. I have seen none saying or even straightforwardly implying it agrees with the consensus. Dmcq (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Neither have I "basically admitted" that. I think HI does not really care about which of the 6 pretend reasons for being against environmental market regulation they give. The real reason is, of course, their worship of free markets. So they can at will switch from any one flavor of denial to any other, and it does not really matter either to them or to me. What matters, as Dmcq says, are the reliable sources which say HI is involved in climate change denial. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

If you don't specify in what sense HI is involved in climate change denial, the reader will be confused that HI is also part of the 97% consensus. A reliable source would probably elaborate on the climate change denial and not just name call. They should get their say, but it should be attributed and specific. There is no reason that both HI's and the secondary sources positions can't be represented and attributed. Poodleboy (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

As long as you stick by your ridiculous strawman that the "97% consensus" is based only on the Doran/Zimmermann paper, and keep promoting the Heartland interpretation of that paper, I don't think this discussion is going anywhere. There are several studies using different if often overlapping descriptions of the consensus position, and different methodologies for assessing agreement with the consensus. They all arrive at close to, but not quite unanimous, consent for the consensus position. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

When making a specific statement like whether HI agrees with the scientific consensus on climate change, it helps to have a specific sources and criteria for what that consensus is. I think you will find that Anderegg doesn't have useful criteria and relies heavily on Doran and Zimmerman in its review of other attempts to assess the consensus, and somehow manages to mischaracterize Doran and Zimmerman and mistate the IPCC AR4 SPM statement. It may be best to have multiple attributed statements. Doran and Zimmerman is the cleanest to assess. I notice that you haven't been able to defend your revert of my better justified characterization of the source that was being used in the article. Can you assist in providing some other statements? Poodleboy (talk) 07:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Provide a reliable sources that conforms with the requirements of WP:OR that show what you are talking about. The requirements include that the source mentions the Heartland Institute or something very close to that. Your own analysis is inadmissible. There is no requirement in Wikipedia to provide explanations of the statements in reliable sources and normally such explanations are not provided. For instance proofs of theorems are not given unless the proof is itself notable. Dmcq (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Replacement/correction of the 1st statement of the global warming section, the lead may also have to be changed

Fortunately, we finally have a good source for HI's position on climate change. It had already been clear that they were part of the Doran/Zimmerman standard consensus, but we were only finding statements like this: "Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming also support those statements."[3] where the HI did not specificly agree with the standard. Now that we have a declarative statement of the truth of the Doran/Zimmerman criteria, we can correct the first part of the global warming section. Here is the proposed first few lines:

The Heartland Institute agrees with the scientific consensus on climate change as assessed in the Doran and Zimmerman 97% article but says that human activities are not driving climate change, the amount of climate change is not catastrophic and might even be beneficial, and that the economic costs of trying to mitigate climate change exceed the benefits. According to the New York Times, Heartland is "the primary American organization pushing climate change skepticism."

I retain the citation needed, even though it may be a valid summary given one of the current sources. "not driving" and "significant" don't conflict. Poodleboy (talk) 02:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I have removed it as WP:OR. It is very obviously OR and you have been warned many times about that. Doing that is disruptive. Dmcq (talk) 06:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

What you have done is restored a text which you now know is wrong. That is not editing in good faith, it is tantamount to vandalism, now that you know it is wrong. The corrected version is well sourced, with plenty of supporting quotation in the citation, to see that the proposed text is correct. You are obviously biased, if you weren't you could be objective and just follow the evidence. You couldn't wait to discuss it, you had to revert first. You who have been arguing for summarizing and not quoting, are now going to say doing so is WP:OR? Prove it! Poodleboy (talk) 07:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

If you persist in trying to stick in your WP:OR you will eventually be blocked. Dmcq (talk) 07:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know whether to take your threat seriously. Can you give examples of where you got more knowledgable people who were editing in good faith, blocked before? Reflect a bit on whether you are guilty of violating WP:OWN and WP:AGF. Poodleboy (talk) 08:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Well since you claim to be knowledgeable see WP:EXPERT and take note of section 2 in section 'General'. Dmcq (talk) 10:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

You keep trying to send me down bunny trails, there wasn't any new information in there. Poodleboy (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Poodleboy has been notified that Arbitration Enforcement applies. I think we're about ready for Arbitration enforcement at this point. --Ronz (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

You were ready at your first flyby revert. You obviously think you speak for the community.Poodleboy (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if you are not just trolling to be blocked, please refrain from such comments. --Ronz (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

You were the one trolling. Why are you still not addressing the substance instead of other editors? Poodleboy (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I find Arbitration Enforcement to be of exceptional importance here. --Ronz (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Focused on the substance again I see. And if you were an involved admin like Raul654, you could block me yourself and get nary a slap on the hand.Poodleboy (talk) 23:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Intended or not, all this focus on me is trolling. Please stop. --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on whether the first statement of the proposed text is supported by the provided sources independently of any comments on whether you favor admitting that HI is part of the 97% Doran consensus. We already have known that HI self identifies as skeptics and routinely states that most skeptics would be part of the Doran consensus. This wouldn't be the first time that wikipedia would have had to step in and decided that it had to be objective instead of ruined by a biased WP:OWN collective.Poodleboy (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

This is not a discussion forum. What you have there is OR. The Heartland Institute make it clear they oppose the consensus [4], there is no OR with the current sentence and no reason to go on and on with your soapboxing. If you want to discuss matters like that do it on some forum about climate change. This talk page is for discussion related to improving the article. By the way the page [5] you are using in your 'analysis' is no longer available. Dmcq (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I think Ronz can speak for himself. We know how your standards tighten up when the truth becomes unconvenient. That source does not contradict the statement put forward here which represents the HI position on the Doran standard. Here is the statement from the source you think is relevant, the emphasis will be mine: "On the contrary, there is extensive evidence of scientific disagreement about many of the most important issues that must be resolved before the hypothesis of dangerous man-made global warming can be validated." Note that this HI statement makes it clear that they take no issue with the Doran statements which because they are not in the category they are disputing or that they think may skeptics would dispute: "At issue is not whether the climate warmed since the Little Ice Age or whether there is a human impact on climate" If you can't parse this, you shouldn't be editing or voting on scientific articles. Poodleboy (talk) 01:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

poodleboy, HI set out their position on the science of climate change here [6] 'Our Stance' Overwhelming scientific evidence suggests the greenhouse gas-induced global climate signal is so small as to be embedded within the background variability of the natural climate system and is not dangerous. This is clearly denying the consensus as assessed by the IPCC, whose reports (e.g. [7]) say inter alia that 'Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions ... are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century' and 'Continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems.' This seems sufficient to support the statement that you are trying to remove (with your WP:OR using an unrealistically narrow definition of the consensus), namely The Heartland Institute opposes the scientific consensus on climate change. TimOsborn (talk) 06:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

TimOsborn, The IPCC does not set out the consensus, and certainly not the consensus popularly touted as achieving 97% acceptance among scientists. The HI statement is not an unreasonable overstatement when you consider that the long term trend was still overwhelmed by internal variability both in the rapid warming of the 80s and 90s and in the recent slowdown in the trend. Natural forcings still account for a majority of the climate commitment at the current atmospheric composition (Wigley 2005). The GHGs have explanatory power for the long term global surface trend. None of this contradicts the Doran/Zimmerman 97% consensus. Note, that I was careful to specify the criteria applied. The legacy statement is misleading, if as you indicate, it secretly relies upon an unquantified IPCC "consensus" when the public has been lead to believe in a 97% consensus. I am open to HI being labeled as opposing a climate "consensus", if which consensus is clearly identified and distinguished from the 97% rhetoric. How would you specify it? Poodleboy (talk) 07:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

At issue is not whether the Heartland Institute agrees or disagrees with Doran and Zimmermann. The issue is that you are engaging in OR and soapboxing in your interpretation of what the Heartland Institute says. Notice I have used the words 'At issue is not whether' and it implies nothing other than what I have said. The Heartland web page is exactly the same in discussing the Doran and Zimmermann survey. It says "At issue is not whether the climate warmed since the Little Ice Age or whether there is a human impact on climate, but whether the warming is unusual in rate or magnitude; whether that part of it attributable to human causes is likely to be beneficial or harmful on net, and by how much; and whether the benefits of reducing the human contribution will outweigh the costs, so as to justify public policies aimed at reducing it. The survey is silent on these questions." That does not say anything about the Heartland Institutes stance on whether global warming is happening or whether there is a human impact. It say 'At issue is not whether' in relation to that part of their criticism of the Doran and Zimmermann survey. I have used that phrase in exactly the same sense. As WP:OR says "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research". Your conclusion is in no way supported by the source. If you can produce something that can be put in fine. However you are engaged in OR and disruption with your bad reasoning and soapboxing. Dmcq (talk) 11:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Your analogy fails Dmcq, because it doesn't correspond to the cited text. Your "or" includes both one side and its negation "agrees or disagrees". The Heartland statement's "or" does not have a proposition and its negation, it has climate warmed ... or ... human impact. It might be easier for you to see the difference if you replaced the "or" with an "and". "At issue is not whether the Heartland Institute agrees AND disagrees with Doran and Zimmerman" Constrast that with "At issue is not whether the climate warmed since the Little Ice Age AND whether there is a human impact on climate". Poodleboy (talk) 12:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

At issue is not whether the Heartland Institute agrees with Doran and Zimmerman etc. Now can you see the correspondence? Now will you stop your OR and soapboxing? Dmcq (talk) 12:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

No, because the HI statement goes on to state what the issues are, and in the course of that acknowledging both the warming and the human influence. I will highlight it here for you: "... but whether THE WARMING is unusual in rate or magnitude; whether THAT PART OF IT ATTRIBUTABLE TO HUMAN CAUSES is likely to be beneficial or harmful on net," Why should I stop when it is clear than I comprehend the text and you don't? Is it possible you are wrong about the WP:OR as well? Can you WP:OR survive so much lack of comprehesion? It would be strange if it wasn't at least modified in some way. Poodleboy (talk) 13:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Whether the Heartland Institute does believe the consensus, whether the sources you point at were meant by them in the way you indicate, whether sticking your conclusions into the article would be a benefit to humanity, none of these matter at all as it is all just your original research and we need reliable sources which state things in a reasonably clear fashion. You are engaging in OR and soapboxing. Dmcq (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The black knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail has nothing on you. Poodleboy (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Just stop the OR and soapboxing. Your reasoning just doesn't hold water never mind not being allowed by WP:OR. Dmcq (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to point out WP:DR at this point. The discussions here are well into WP:IDHT territory, without much better sources that eliminate the OR and SOAP concerns. --Ronz (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

What bit of WP:DR do you see as being of any use in this case? @Poodleboy:, is there any way of resolving this dispute which you would abide by if the decision went against you? Dmcq (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I think WP:DISENGAGE is the best approach here, but there may be others worth pursuing. --Ronz (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

It is strange that you would suggest that right when we finally are making some progress. A couple people show up who might be able to address some of the substance (Tim Osborn and Stephen Schulz), hopefully they will continue to interact, and we find out that the chief chanter of the WP:OR objection has not understood the substance (thanx to Dmcq for his help in this regard). Those who aren't addressing the substance might as well take a break.Poodleboy (talk) 06:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

If disengage is not an option then some other form of dispute resolution is needed. Which form of dispute resolution in WP:DR would you be happy to abide by? If for instance a WP:RfC was raised would you stop trying to put forward your own ides about this if the decision at the end of it rejected what you said? Dmcq (talk) 08:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

You have yet to make a case for your WP:OR allegations, stumbling over your understanding of the text. Wouldn't you want to do that before any dispute resolution? The only issue appears to be your willingness to revert without making a case for WP:OR other than merely alleging it. If I put the statement back in, you be willing leave it to see if someone else has an excuse to revert it and address the substance, they might be better at it. Poodleboy (talk) 09:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I have raised the dispute at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Poodleboy_at_The_Heartland_Institute. Dmcq (talk) 11:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Note that Dmcq has lied, stating that I don't provide sources, he did this less than 36 hours after we spent several comments parsing the sources I gave for my proposed text here. I also referenced a source in my response to Tim Osborne (he would know what Wigley 2005 is in the context of climate commitment.) We should keep on with our business, and ignore this liar. Poodleboy (talk) 11:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

We now have two weeks free from this. Plenty of time to find better sources that eliminate the OR and SOAP concerns. --Ronz (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

There are some citation needed tags in the article which need looking at but otherwise I don't see it. My concern was with the OR and SOAP they were trying to put in. Have you something in mind or think they did actually have some sort of point but didn't know how to express it properly or something like that? Dmcq (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

References

The Heartland Institute has updated their criticisms of this article

Sorry for that clickbait headline, but it seems the institute has published an article titled Wikipedia: Broken, Biased, and Corrupt which concerns this Wikipedia article. I randomly spotted it online and thought to post it here. I have no previous involvement with this page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Update: Ah OK, this seems like an update of a previous Feb 2016 blog post. But this time they have cited a bunch of sources for support. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Rather droll, don't think we've seen much of a surge of alternative reality meatpuppets trying to use these sources, but it's hard to tell. I particularly liked "Infogalactic Launches as Alternative to Biased Wikipedia, Lucas Nolan, Breitbart (Oct 10, 2016)" and "Useful Sites for More Research – Conservapedia (Examples of bias at Wikipedia)" Haven't tried clicking on these links, but rather suspect that they lack a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. . . dave souza, talk 20:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Infogalactic promises to be fun. Star lords, corporations policing their own articles with paid Admins, etc. And I think subjects controlling their biographies. But this is off-topic, sorry. See Jimbo's talk page archives. Doug Weller talk 20:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Gotta love Conservapedia's examples of bias in Wikipedia. Yes, we are biased towards objectively verified fact over ideologically motivated bullshit. Newsflash: this ain't changing. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Just had a look at Infogalactic. It looks to me like a bunch of young right wing narcissists have felt aggrieved by Wikipedia and copied it but written up their own bios to suit themselves better, no references needed :) As far as I can see they'll be offering strokes to contributors like slashdot. It'll be interesting seeing it morph into some alternative of Conservapedia if they manage to keep their interest up long enough. Dmcq (talk) 12:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I guess this is in line with Trump's idea of having his own TV show which will push his views. I think it is sad that people only look at stuff confirming their views - it seems to make them more and more extreme. People shhould look at stuff they disagree with rather than just following those who say it is biased and never looking at it. Dmcq (talk) 15:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

They do have a bit of a point in that most of the stuff here is about the more controversial things they do. That's a general problem in that people only write in newspapers and suchlike about the institute when they see something that will interest their readers and bad news is much more interesting than good news. There just aren't secondary sources that have shown an interest in anything very much good that the institute has done and they have been involved in some rather iffy things, thhat's what secondary sources have written about and that is what Wikipedias policies say should be in the article. They obviously know this as they say "When you make a change, be incremental — getting Wikipedia entries to stick is a long game — and keep an eye on your changes. If it is “changed back,” go to the “talk” section and convince the editors that your edits are fair, objective, independent, and properly sourced." Well if they can properly sourced then good for them but that really is the problem and it sounds like they hope their followers will just longtime pester and push their point of view rather than actually follow their words. Well I suppose we'll see. Dmcq (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

What do they do that's not controversial? They are known (outside of the US, at least) solely as a denial machine. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Everyone take a bow! If we weren't doing a good job, Heartland wouldn't notice us. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Stylistic change needed

Instead of constantly writing "the Heartland Institute", which makes for awkward reading, we should just write "the Institute" most of the time. If no one objects, I'll start doing that soon. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

It's just easier (and shorter) to say "Heartland" instead of "the Institute." The term "Heartland" is more commonly used among people familiar with the organization. Jlakely (talk) 06:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Signpost

Greeting, I am an In the Media editor for the Wikipedia Signpost and I ran across the Institute's October 19 press release. I am interested in any comments from either side on what the controversy is (and it appears to be long running), please feel free to discuss at my talk page or contact me via email at milo_went at yahoo dot com.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the press release in question? Jlakely (talk) 06:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Heartland logo removed, put picture up instead?

I got a notice that the Heartland Institute logo has been removed for copyright reasons. Fair enough. However, I have put a photograph of the front of Heartland's headquarters (where I work) in Wiki commons for fair and free use. Perhaps someone would consider putting it up in place of the removed logo?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Heartland_Sign_1.jpg

--Jlakely (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

It is perfectly okay to have a logo on the article that a logo refers to, just it can't be used elsewhere except in special circumstances and it can't be saved in Commons, it has to be kept in Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Logos for the full business of fair use of logos and other copyright symbols. I'd say that picture looks better anyway though, covers the business and has less problems, so I don't want a change back. Dmcq (talk) 13:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Earlier discussion of bibilography copied here

From two years ago:

£Hi. I would like to open a conversation in regard to building an accurate bibliography, from a catalog such as WorldCat [1], citing some of the Heartland Institute's major books. Inclusion could be based upon the number of libraries owning. What do the Gods of the Copybook Headings think?Roseoilpicnic (talk) 1:31 am, 29 March 2016, Tuesday (1 year, 10 months, 21 days ago) (UTC+1)

I'm not sure of what general consensus there is for including lists of publications. Perhaps others are more familiar with what guidelines and general consensus that applies. WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY covers layout and structure. The problems to avoid are NOT (WP:SOAP and WP:NOTDIR) and WP:NPOV. Given that publishers regularly give donate to libraries, the number of libraries that hold the books seems problematic, echoing the pblishers' marketing efforts, and so a SOAP violation. --Ronz (talk) 5:22 pm, 29 March 2016, Tuesday (1 year, 10 months, 21 days ago) (UTC+1) I think one can apply a fairly low standard to that, I'd be happy with a list of any their publications that some secondary source somewhere has ever mentioned unless the number of them starts making the article lopsided. Dmcq (talk) 6:52 pm, 29 March 2016, Tuesday (1 year, 10 months, 21 days ago) (UTC+1)"

Pinging the editors above and those involved now. @Srich32977, Dmcq, Ronz, Roseoilpicnic, and JesseRafe:. My own opinion is that a small selection of books about the Institute might be encyclopedic, but not their publications, that's what their website is for. If there's been in depth discussion of any of their publications, a reflection of that discussion might (or might not) be appropriate in the article. Doug Weller talk 09:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Basically the same as I thought back then. They are self published books of no intrinsic note unless mentioned by someone else, and certainly not just a catalog which lists everything a library is given. So if somebody mentions them fine, but and accurate bibliography?, I think that would verge on making Wikipedia into a sales brochure for their products. Dmcq (talk) 10:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. From what discussions I've seen in the past two years, there seems to be less tolerance for such lists due to NOT and POV concerns. --Ronz (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the above, removed them recently because it was long, presented without context, and seemingly non-notable/indiscriminate. JesseRafe (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree. But with a slightly differing rationale. If the authors or works are WP:NOTABLE or best-sellers, or widely cited, then the works are WP:NOTEWORTHY and should be mentioned. – S. Rich (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

If the authors... How is a book due mention just because of a notable author? --Ronz (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the books, since we don't agree on inclusion criteria at this point.

I'd guess that there are third-party references available listing the periodicals and how they're distributed to legislators. If so, we need to include such references. Otherwise, I'm leaning toward removing the periodicals as well. --Ronz (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Restoring book mentions per WP:NOTEWORTHY. The fact that these notable authors choose to publish via Heartland is enough justification. The WorldCat listings for the periodicals suffice as third-party sourcing. – S. Rich (talk) 06:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the rationale and their inclusion on their face. However, as a modest list of 5 items, they demonstrate the type of publications printed, and would be OK as exemplars, with the clear understanding that it is not meant to be presented as an exhaustive list. Better still, would be if any news source or book review mentioned these titles and commented about Heartland in the review/critique, not just listed its publisher. JesseRafe (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The fact that these notable authors choose to publish via Heartland is enough justification. That's simply WP:SOAP and OR on your part, without independent references.

We already describe what topics they promote, so why the examples? --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Not SOAP at all. The mere listing of publications, independently referenced through WorldCat, is helpful to the readers IAW readers first. Also, the limited listing complies with WP:YESPOV. – S. Rich (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC) Also, please note that I added a link to Brian Dunning's Skeptoid podcast which is very critical of Heartland. 04:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:YESPOV describes presentation of opposing views. It says nothing about listing publications. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Without any independent sources demonstrating encyclopedic value, we only have their need for publicity and editors' personal opinions driving inclusion.

The lack of direct responses to simple POV/SOAP concerns is damning at this point. --Ronz (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The limited listing helps build WP and complies with WP:ENC. Compare, the Demos (U.S. think tank) article has a listing of its various programs and that listing does not have or need "independent sources". Raising POV/SOAP concerns, and then expecting a response does not confirm the concern – these discussions are meant to reach consensus. – S. Rich (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

So ignore NOT and POV, and point out that other stuff exists is the best argument we have for inclusion? --Ronz (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Delete the "Heartland Film Festival" disclaimer at the top.

There is no reason to confuse The Heartland Institute with the "Heartland International Film Festival," and it is rather ridiculous that this "clarification" still exists, as it has for years.

The Heartland Institute, founded in 1984, is a well-known think tank that has garnered copious media attention around the world. The Heartland International Film Festival (mislabeled on Wikipedia, by the way) was started in 1992 and has attracted little public attention outside its genre and the film world of the Midwest. Besides, the film festival's Wikipedia site — nothing but a brief description and a list of outdated winners of their awards — has not been updated about its core purpose (giving our awards) since 2013.

The Heartland Institute is regularly reported upon in the mainstream media, including a story in the Associated Press published on May 25, 2018 which was posted in nearly 1,000 media outlets across America. This is hardly the only time this year Heartland has made news. Again: Is it not clear that few have heard of the "Heartland Film Festival" and no one would conflate "Heartland Institute" with "Heartland International Film Festival"? Why is that ridiculous "disclaimer for readers" still at the top of The Heartland Institute page?

It is hard to believe this designation remains up there for any other purpose than to suggest that the well-known Heartland Institute is on par with something so obscure. That's clever, insidious, and with the intent to diminish The Heartland Institute.

I await a good argument why it should not be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlakely (talk • contribs) 05:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

If the link is removed than a link to Heartland for WP:Disambiguation should be put in instead. This would make finding the Heartland Film Institute after having put in Heartland Institute rather a bit longer. And in fact I can't see Heartland Film listed there at all which I think is a problem. Dmcq (talk) 07:52, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

"due to the leak of their climate change strategy"

This is not a forum for discussion of something that might or might not have happened. Black Kite (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The article currently says, "In 2012, a large number of sponsors withdrew funding due to the leak of their climate change strategy and the controversy over their billboard campaign." Actually, the "climate change strategy memo" was not leaked, it was forged, by Dr. Peter Gleick. That's how Gleick got caught: Berkeley Earth's Steve Mosher and others recognized Gleick's distinctive writing style in the forged memo. I'm sure the partisans here won't let that sort of inconvenient truth into the article, so I'll settle for just deleting the false statement about "the leak of their climate change strategy." NCdave (talk) 05:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC) Please review WP:BLP, and either offer a far better reference or refactor your comments. --Ronz (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC) They said there was no evidence that Gleick had forged it but it is pretty well accepted the 'climate change strategy' document was forged. I agree that is a bad reference, if it is to be changed to say 'forged' a third party reliable source should be used. Otherwise I would support just removig the statement as outlined above or putting in 'disputed'. Dmcq (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC) I changed it t simply refer to the section heading where people can read more about it as we don't have a well recognized name. Dmcq (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC) I can accept that. It is certainly true that the "strategy memo" document, with its stated goal of "dissuading teachers from teaching science," was forged, not leaked; here's a Reliable Source (The Atlantic): https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/peter-gleick-confesses-to-obtaining-heartland-documents-under-false-pretenses/253395/ When someone is caught distributing a forgery, that's prima pacie evidence that he is the forger, or at least complicit in the forgery. It is surely rare for someone to distribute a forged document who had no involvement in the forgery. Even Gleick doesn't claim that the forged "strategy memo" was actually from Heartland. Gleick's story, now, is that he received the forged document anonymously, and wondered about its authenticity, and that curiosity was what prompted him to steal the other documents from Heartland. (But that doesn't explain why Mosher and others were able to identify Gleick from his distinctive writing style, in the forged document.) Heartland produced this presentation, as part of their attempt to persuade the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois to prosecute Gleick: https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/publications/criminal_referral_of_peter_gleick.pdf Their attempt was unsuccessful. The U.S. Attorney, an appointee of President Obama, refused to prosecute, and the statute of limitations has now run out. NCdave (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC) Gleick's name was in the document - that could explain why Mosher thought it was him. I'm not saying you're wrong but I can't see that there is enough to say much more about Gleick without going against WP:BLP. I'm not too keen on insinuations of improper behavior against an attorney. And insinuating Obama had anything to do with it is diving into conspiracy theory territory. Dmcq (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC) @NCdave: Once again, please be far more cautious with statements about living persons. Multiple ArbCom decisions apply. This is not an article where promotion of conspiracy theories will be taken lightly. --Ronz (talk) 23:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC) @Dmcq: & @Ronz:, please refrain from speciously accusing fellow Wikipedia editors of "promotion of conspiracy theories." That is a violation of WP:CIVIL. Gleick is a public figure, so the the fact that various parties, including the victims of the defamatory forgery, credibly accused him of being the forger, and petitioned the U.S. Attorney to prosecute him for that crime, belongs in any discussion of the crime. It is currently missing, but it should be added. Dmcq, you needn't speculate about why Mosher and others concluded that Gleick was the forger. Mosher explained why, at length, with a series of posted blog comments beginning here. It was the incongruous appearance of Gleick's name in the document, with the strangely flattering description of him as a "high-profile climate scientist," in a document which said nothing complimentary about any other climate activists, that first drew Mosher's attention to Gleick. But it was the idiosyncrasies of Gleick's own writing style, found in the forged document, that Mosher mostly discussed, when explaining why he thought Gleick wrote it. Note that that was all before Gleick confessed to being the person who had impersonated the Heartland Board Member to steal the other documents. That cemented it. BTW, I did not insinuate that President Obama had something to do with the U.S. Attorney's refusal to prosecute. NCdave (talk) 06:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC) Saying "The U.S. Attorney, an appointee of President Obama, refused to prosecute" is insinuating a conspiracy theory as far as I'm concerned. The simplest explanation is that he simply did not consider there was enough evidence to prosecute. Wikipedia can't say he forged it. The most that can be done in a case like this is to give evidence from reliable sources as an allegation. Please desist from stating it as fact here, Wikipedia is not a forum. Dmcq (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC) @NCdave:I'm always happy to refactor. I don't believe I accused anyone of anything. I did try to caution you about BLP. I'll add that it's best to focus on content and ignore comments that appear to be uncivil, uncooperative, or insulting. --Ronz (talk) 15:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC) @Dmcq:, saying "The U.S. Attorney, an appointee of President Obama, refused to prosecute" insinuates nothing. It is not a conspiracy theory, it is a simple statement of fact. An example of a conspiracy theory would be an accusation that the folks at Heartland secretly conspired to "dissuade teachers from teaching science" -- which is effectively what this very article did, when it described the forged document (which contained that accusation) as a "leak" from Heartland. We can only speculate about why the U.S. attorney declined to prosecute, but "he simply did not consider there was enough evidence to prosecute" is not a plausible reason, since Gleick, himself, publicly confessed to actions which included two felonies. That did not include creating the forgery which he distributed. I agree with you that, under Wikipedia's guidelines, as I understand them, w/r/t the authorship of the forgery, since he didn't confess to that, and the case was not prosecuted, the most that can be done is to give evidence from reliable sources as an allegation. But the same is not true for the other crimes. NCdave (talk) 11:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC) "We can only speculate about why the U.S. attorney declined to prosecute" - Wrong. We can also refuse to speculate about that. That is the option everybody except you chose. Your "Obama appointee" stuff is exactly what Dcmq said: an insinuation of conspiracy. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC) Please see WP:FORUM this is not a forum. If you continue to insinuate improper actions by an attorney here without a reliable source saying so then I will have to ask for you to be banned from Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 12:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC) Hob Gadling and Dmcq, I've already asked you once to please refrain from speciously accusing a fellow Wikipedia editor of "promotion of conspiracy theories." Please cease making specious accusations and threats against a fellow Wikipedian. Your behavior is in violation of WP:CIVIL. I "insinuated" nothing. I merely stated facts. The fact is that the U.S. Attorney was appointed by President Obama. That is a matter of record. The fact is that the U.S. Attorney was petitioned by Heartland to prosecute Gleick, but declined to do so. That is also a matter of record. Those are indisputable facts. If you think that the U.S. Attorney's refusal to prosecute, even though the crimes to which Gleick admitted (i.e., not including the forgery) could have resulted in up to 22 years in prison, was either proper or improper, that is just your opinion. I have not expressed an opinion about it. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know what constitutes what the legal profession considers "proper" or "improper" exercise of prosecutorial discretion by a U.S. Attorney. Likewise, you two are the only ones talking about any "conspiracy," not me. I don't know of any evidence of a conspiracy. A conspiracy implies the involvement of two or more parties. Who do you imagine could have been part of a "conspiracy" in this case? Hob Gadling also wrote, "We can also refuse to speculate about that. That is the option everybody except you chose."' Wrong. The only person in this thread who has speculated about why the U.S. Attorney declined to prosecute was Dmcq, who speculated that "he simply did not consider there was enough evidence to prosecute." I pointed out that his speculation was implausible, because the actions to which Gleick admitted included two felonies. Which is right. NCdave (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC) This getting silly, please don't use this talk page to argue over the political bias of each other's talk page posts, the talk page is for discussing changes to the content of the article, because that is what really matters, not whether somone said "an Obama appointee" in a talk page post. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Cambridge University Press book discussing the Institute and the Trump administration

I don't have time, but this is an excellent source.[8] Doug Weller talk 07:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)