famed list of “500 scientists who don’t believe in global warming” debunked?

Nah, they don't care. The whole deal with denial (call it skepticism if you will) is this: It is not that people are unwilling to face how serious the situation has become. The basis of the denial is that the situation got that serious and they missed it entirely until they were informed by Al Gore, the UN, Greenpeace, and other people they don't like. That's what they can't come to terms with. These are people who are competitive about being smart and well informed and cannot ever accept being wrong in any arena. Learning of the most important event in the history of the human race from people they despise is more than their stunted psyches can process. They just go blue screen and reboot everytime they think about it.

The Heartland Institute are a joke they don't seem able to put forward anything that dosen't fall to pieces whether it is this list ~10% within 24 hours of its release saying they new nothing about being on the list sounds much like the Oregon Petition which used a similar tactic.

This is Heartland Institute stock & trade the conference they held in New York recently claimed several hundred scientists but turned out to have only a handfull and they had been paid to attend.

Evans - It might help if you actually went to the link before trying to defend the Heartland Institute.

Only 122 scientists were e-mailed and in less than 24-hours 3-dozen responded (and shortly thereafter that it was up to 45). That's already a 37% failure rate on Heartlands "fact-checking". It doesn't matter if a few of the people on the list actually agree with the Heartlands perspective, the undeniable fact is that the Heartland Institute clearly did NOT even bother to contact the scientists who they claimed support them. That's the worst kind of PR disinformation.

The scientists who were bullied into agreeing are fine with this "willow" for several reasons, the main one being they are the product of the heartland institutes imagination.

Most of the MNC's Will fund these type of research. In realy world we are feeling somthing going wrong in climate.

Discredit the Heartland Institute?

You mean they ever had credibility at some point?

Here's their ExxonMobil funding:

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?...

Heartland Institute has received $791,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

1997

$unknown Mobil Corporation

Source: Heartland material, present at 3/16/97 conference

1998

$30,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving

Source: ExxonMobil 1998 grants list

2000

$115,000 ExxonMobil Foundation

Climate Change

Source: ExxonMobil Foundation 2000 IRS 990

2001

$90,000 ExxonMobil Foundation

Source: ExxonMobil 2001 Annual Report

2002

$15,000 ExxonMobil Foundation

Source: ExxonMobil 2002 Annual Report

2003

$7,500 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving

19th Aniversary Benefit Dinner

Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Corporate Giving Report

2003

$85,000 ExxonMobil Foundation

General Operating Support

Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Corporate Giving Report

2004

$10,000 Exxon Corporation

Climate Change Activities

Source: Exxon Giving Report 2004

2004

$15,000 ExxonMobil Foundation

Climate Change Efforts

Source: Exxon Giving Report 2004

2004

$75,000 ExxonMobil Foundation

General Operating Support

Source: Exxon Giving Report 2004

2005

$29,000 ExxonMobil Foundation

Source: ExxonMobil 2005 DIMENSIONS Report (Corporate Giving)

2005

$90,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving

Source: ExxonMobil 2005 DIMENSIONS Report (Corporate Giving)

2006

$90,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving

General Operating Support

Source: ExxonMobil Corporate Giving Report 2006

2006

$25,000 ExxonMobil Foundation

Anniversary Benefit dinner $10,000 General operting Support $15,000

Source: ExxonMobil Corporate Giving Report 2006

2006

$10,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving

Anniversary benefit dinner

Source: ExxonMobil Corporate Giving Report 2006

2006

$15,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving

general operating support

Source: ExxonMobil Corporate Giving Report 2006

2006

$90,000 ExxonMobil Foundation

general operating support

Source: ExxonMobil Corporate Giving Report 2006

Are these people on their payroll, compensated with ExxonMobil funds?

S. Fred Singer

HeartlandGlobalWarming.org expert

Source: Heartland Institute - HeartlandGlobalWarming.org

Richard Lindzen

HeartlandGlobalWarming.org expert

Source: Heartland Institute - HeartlandGlobalWarming.org

Ross McKitrick

HeartlandGlobalWarming.org expert

Source: Heartland Institute - HeartlandGlobalWarming.org

Patrick J. Michaels

HeartlandGlobalWarming.org expert

Source: Heartland Institute - HeartlandGlobalWarming.org

William M. Gray

HeartlandGlobalWarming.org Expert

Source: Heartland Institute - HeartlandGlobalWarming.org

Because money would be passed through Heartland, they could still claim that they're not paid (directly) by the oil industry...

Yes.

This is all part of a massive disinformation campaign to try to convince people that there is serious disagreement among scientists on the facts. It's called the FUD strategy, fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

There are always a few scientists with different ideas than the mainstream. But their numbers are tiny. The vast majority support the conclusions of the IPCC. This is still true:

"The fact that the community overwhelmingly supports the consensus is evidenced by picking up any copy of Journal of Climate or similar, any scientific program at the meetings, or simply going to talk to scientists. I challenge you, if you think there is some un-reported division, show me the hundreds of abstracts that support your view - you won't be able to. You can argue whether the consensus is correct, or what it really implies, but you can't credibly argue it doesn't exist."

500 scientists who 'they claimed' don't support the theory of global warming is a minute proportion of those who do. So really this 500 is so insignificant I don't believe it will cause any major ripples. Except of course for those poor souls who have supported the theory of Global Warming for many years only to find they are on the 'opposite team's' list.

Any 'professional body' that does not verify it's research and get written authority to use a person's name (incorrectly in this case) should be discredited.

It doesn't really matter if they care or not, the fact is they have made errors, they have been negligent and those incorrectly named may have the right to legal redress.

This is something that doesn't surprise me. When ones fights against certain scientific facts (in this case the reality of AGW) one will inevitably have to resort to unsavory tactics.

The great thing about karma is it always finds it target. In this instance this quote applies, "What is whispered behind closed doors will be shouted on roof tops."

being label a denier is akin to being called a witch in 13th century spain. The fact remains the jury is still out. A on cause IF it exists and B. the cure.

I believe fully scientific inquiry should be made to discover the "truth" for me the truth has not been shown adequately. Flawed models do not make the climate change, it instills drooling ecofascist whose quest is not for a healthy world but global political controls.