Talk:Heartland Institute/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Heartland Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100804040339/http://mediamattersaction.org:80/transparency/organization/Heartland_Institute to http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Heartland_Institute

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Jlakely (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)== Updates to address 2014 990 form ==

In the summer of 2015, The Heartland Institute moved out of its office at One South Wacker in Chicago to a new office at 3939 North Wilke Road in Arlington Heights, Illinois. It hosted a Grand Opening picnic at its new office building on August 22, 2015. Heartland's entry should reflect its new location.

Also: It's unclear why foundationcenter.org does not have an updated 990 form stating Heartland's revenue and expenses, but Heartland's website has the PDF of its 2014 990 form posted, showing revenue of $6,738,428 and expenses of $4,393,358.

These changes would seem to be basic and without any controversy, and should be made.

That actually seems reasonable.JohnMashey (talk) 01:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Layout of the page

HughD Do you think that your edits to the layout of the page may put too much weight on specific incidents like the "document misappropriation" and the billboard rather than the ongoing - and surely more interesting to most readers - positions of the Institute, notably its position on climate change? Or does it not matter what order the body subheading take? Thanks Greg Sabatino (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I think I must agree with that. The article should have the more general sort of stuff first. Climate change is a current thing with them but there are other things too and we shouldn't be too focused on the present though it should be prominent. I don't really know quite how to put it except that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. not a scrapbook or newspaper. Dmcq (talk)

In weight discussions the length of coverage in WP relative to coverage in reliable sources is generally a much more important consideration than the order of subtopics. Part of our discipline of neutrality involves not forking material considered favorable or unfavorable, to different articles, or to different sections. The so-called "document misappropriation" is one of if not the most significant events in the history of the subject of this article. The press coverage of the event dominates coverage of the subject of this article in reliable sources. So, no, we should not position certain events at the end of an article in an attempt to reduce its weight. And I think a fact filled history section flows naturally early and should fall before any characterizations of policy positions. The policy positions and climate skepticism in particular are prominently featured in a full paragraph summary in the lede, as per our manual of style; their first mention is not buried "below the fold." Hugh (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

No that is just wrong. Wikipedia is supposed to be edited for readability as an encyclopaedia, it is not a ragbag with things automatically sorted to the top like some news aggregator. You are squaring the emphasis if you are sticking it at the top and having it large. The article should be presented in a logical manner. The weight comes in when comparing to other viewpoints on a subject. Dmcq (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I just had a look at the last big edits of yours to something called Americans for prosperity and I've got to say it looks like a real mess as well. You have got to think about the overall structure rather than just sorting the sections by how many citations they have in them. Dmcq (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Dmcq. If our goal is to structure this page like an encyclopedia, then the ongoing positions/activities of the Institute should come above specific isolated events like the "document misappropriation" and the billboard campaign. As it stands now, it's like the body of the Britney Spears page leading with the time she shaved her head (to pull an analogy off the top of my head). Greg Sabatino (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, a fellow fan, I see! That's great. Please note that BS artilce is well-structured, as per MOS, a good article even; the first section of the body is history, and the head shaving is included in that section, not broken out into a section at the end called "Incidents". Hugh (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay I've moved all the incidents after the section on positions but before the financial section. Dmcq (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Please take a look at this section hat template and tell me what it means to you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Criticism_section. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Our readers benefit from knowledge of who this organization is before diving into their policy positions. WP:RF However, if you disagree, and favor history at the end, I'm very sure you would move the whole history, positive and negative. Breaking out certain historical events ad labeling them "incidents" is nothing more than a blatant POV fork. Hugh (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I doubt our arguments will convuince you as you think we are POV pushers. I get the feeling if the consensus of 2 to 1 in this discussion changes the page against what you want then you'll just think that we're acting against policy in a POV way and you'll go and do the same sort of thing somewhere else. So here's a choice, we can discuss this on the talk page of the relevant poicy which I think would be WP:NPOVN or we could have a wider talk here via a WP:RfC on this talk page, which would you prefer or is there some other forum you believe would be better? Dmcq (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Please don't speak for me, you don't know what I think, thanks. Please don't count votes on this, that is not helpful. Policy is clear. Did you look at that template? Please convince me why someone should not slap that template to your proposed "Incidents" section, should you restore it? Please tell me, what is the principle you use to distinguish an "Incident" from the rest of the history of the subject of this article, and put it at the end, if not POV? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I will raise the matter at WP:NPOVN then since you will not decide. Dmcq (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Query raised at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Does_weight_mean_that_incidents_should_come_before_a_description_of_an_organisation.27s_aims.3F. Dmcq (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

There has been a couple of responses at the noticeboard. I think basically they agree that we should go from the general to the particular. That before going on about documents being taken we should say what their general position and actions on climate change and various responses have been. I think that section could possibly go in the climate change position section rather than in a separate section on notable incidents but it shouldn't be before without context. 11:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment of the consensus of the discussion. You did a noticeboard request, very commendable, but now you are back to "I think..." Hugh (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

In journalism, news style embraces the inverted pyramid, where the body is organized from most significant to least. Journalist worry about their readers "getting to" the good stuff. However, we on WP are specifically prohibited from this style by policy, WP:NOT#JOURNALISM. Chronological ordering of events has many advantages; it is very neutral, and most of the time an easy consensus. Think about that. Think about what the one uninvolved commenter said, "general information should precede specifics, and facts should precede analysis." Think about the conservative project's guideline. I would appreciate your collaboration on the content of the article. We are all in complete agreement that the subject of this article's involvement in climate change is its most significant aspect. That does not mean climate change is the first topic after the lede. We have a lede a paragraph for that. We have a table of contents for readers who want to skip ahead. The 5th subtopic is no farther away than the 2nd in hypertext. Late or early placement of subtopics connotes nothing in wikipedia. Hugh (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree we cannot completely isolate events to a history section. For example, in doing justice to the policy positions we will include a meeting held, or a book published, and other events that might be considered history. So like most editorial decisions we are asked to make judgements and arrive at consensus. But to break out certain events, that are for the most part independent of any particular policy position, just because in your opinion the certain events are distracting, and put them last, is not a good organization, sorry, and non-neutral. The events you seek to "demote," the 2012 document leak and the billboard, are among the most significant events in the history of the subject of this article, as evidence in the impact of those events on funding, and on the impact of those events on coverage in reliable sources. Hugh (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Why are you ignoring what they said about "general information should precede specifics, and facts should precede analysis"? That is why the position should be before the specific incidents. The misappropriation of documents is not general information and it isn't 'facts' - it is something that happened and has no particular impact on anything else in the article. The article is strange with that being put before the context in which it happened. The first response did give one situation in which such a thing might be okay - if the notability of the article was dependent on it in a major way. But that isn't the case here. Your statement "Late or early placement of subtopics connotes nothing in wikipedia" is in contradiction with what the respondents said, and you originally objected to them being lower down because you said it broke NPOV which is the noticeboard the respondents were on, and now talk about it as demoting so you do consider order as connoting something.

If you think they meant something different respond to them and clarify there. Dmcq (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

"The misappropriation of documents is not general information and it isn't 'facts' - it is something that happened and has no particular impact on anything else in the article." No particular impact? The severe impact of the documents and the billboard on subsequent funding is in multiple reliable sources. Those two historical events you seek to "lower" the weight of by breaking them out of the history section and place at the end of the article are the most significant events in terms of coverage in reliable sources on the subject of this article. It's sad, because I wish the subject of this article's activities with respect to climate change had as much coverage. It's sad, maybe, but coverage in reliable sources is how due weight is defined in WP. Sorry, it's not up to us to form personal assessments of significance. Hugh (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see they are receiving about $6 million now compared to about $5.5 million before that campaign in 2012 so the effect wasn't major in their history. Those were not what made the article notable. If you don't challenge the assessment at the NPOV noticeboard I will assume you recognize you don't have a case.. Dmcq (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Not good to assume. Well then, curious, what would you consider be a major event? The good news here is that there is absolutely no need for you and I to waste time in talk space that we could be spending (in my case anyway) productively in article space, since policy provides us with a clear, unambiguous, quanititative, objective standard for deciding weight: proportionality to coverage in reliable sources. There is no mention in WP:DUE of financial impact as measured in US$. Whether you or I anyone else likes it or not, the doc leak and the billboard far and away dominate coverage of the subject of this article in rs. Hugh (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Please don't dig in. Please I could use some help with the content. Look, once you start a history section, you're kinda committed. We're bound by the imperative not to section fork. We can't fork without being exposed to questions of POV, regardless of our intentions. If we fork the history now our GA reviewer's gonna ask us to put it back. Would you pick a couple few representatives examples of Hank VIII's wives, highlight them up front in history, and put the short-timers at the bottom? We need a very compelling reason to break an event out of the history. Here, if an event or activity makes sense in support of a particular policy position, sure. We have another imperative which is to let the facts speak for themselves. Ideally we would describe our org's activities and our readers would comprehend the positions. This org has a boatload of history that is orthogonal to the particular positions. The history should stay together, and the history should come before the policy positions. Help me take this to GA. In fact, you can nominate it. Expand one of the short sections. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 00:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no real point discussing with me, you effectively dismissed me as a POV pusher at the start but those people at the noticeboard are third parties and only people like that can be of much use for changing minds in a situation like that. Tell them your side and convince just one other person to say they think you're right, or even do that on this page, and I'll consider that you have some sort of point and stop. Dmcq (talk) 08:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't want you to stop & go away, I want you to stay & help me with the content of this article you have strong feelings about. The slow response at the notice board was our peers telling us to work this out. Yes, early in this discussion, I raised the issue that taking certain events out of the history section and moving them to the end of the article would necessarily be perceived by our readers and fellow editors as a POV section fork, regardless of our motives; I did not intent to be accusatory or personal. I apologize for that. After further discussion, my impression is you sincerely believe that we need to get to climate change as quickly and early in this article as possible, please correct me if my impression is wrong. Let's work together in article space. How's your GA count? Hugh (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the organisation is interesting, I'm intrigued that people put so much money and effort into that sort of thing,, but I don't have strong feelings about it. I do not think the article needs to get to climate change as quickly as possible, I want it to be readable and the general basics dealt with before specifics. Personally I agree with the scientific consensus on that but I believe NPOV is the right policy for Wikipedia. I don't think there was any special message from the noticeboard except what people actually said. What further discussion are you talking about? I see no other discussion. I do want articles to be well based and readable but I'm not specifically interested in GA. I am simply waiting to see if there is any response from you about the consensus, it would be better if you could engage those who commented. Otherwise since you are an active editor I see you making lots of articles better in detail but worse in overall structure and readability. Dmcq (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I wish there were not two "global warming" sections to read. I think it is mean to our readers. Sorry, I would like to discuss merging them.

• History
• Global warming
  • current two small paragraphs from policy positions section serve as general comments introducing global warming advocacy activities
  • current 2nd-level subsections of "Actions on global warming" become 2nd-level subsection under "global warming"
• Other policy areas
  • current 2nd-level subsections of "Policy positions" (minus global warming subsection) smoking, healthcare, etc

Feature the most notable policy area 1st. Their 2nd most notable policy position is a distant 2nd. The general paragraphs from policy positions serve as a good introduction to the more specific events. Hugh (talk) 03:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC) Hugh (talk) 03:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

One is a short description of their policy and is in the policy section. Merging would mean either removing a major part of their policy from the policy section, or sticking a very large section into the policy section which isn't about their policy but what they have done and make it unwieldy and unreadable. I think the rest oof what you've written there is you saying you want to shove the policy positions at the bottom. I think that is an extremely bad structuring of the article as I have explained to you multiple times before but you don't seem to be able to take on-board. IF you want to duplicate the two small paragraphs from the policy section at the start of the section on their actions on climate change feel free to do so but your idea here seems to be to use a tail to wag the dog. If you were really sorry you would stop persisting with thhis. Dmcq (talk) 10:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I see Mann jess (talk · contribs) rearranged the section about Global warming policy to put about Sanger first rather than policy and removed the link to the section about actions. I've put it back to something I think is more rational with policy first, particulars second, and reception third. I'll see if there is some tag to put the link in at the start of the section. Dmcq (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Huh. You're right. I have no idea why I did that. Yes, it makes sense to summarize their policy first, and get to details later, and I'm fine with reorganizing that way. Thanks Dmcq!   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Dmcq. Please take a breath and consider the outline suggested above. No one is "shoving" anything anywhere. The suggestion is not "extremely bad." No one is edit warring. Thank you. Now, global warming is a policy position, and so are the rest. Global warming is the most notable policy position as per vast rs. It goes first. All of it. In one place. The 1st thing readers see after history. Global warming is so notable, that it has its own section, ahead of "Other policy areas." What do you think? Hugh (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

"duplicate the two small paragraphs from the policy section at the start of the section on their actions on climate change" We both see the problem, thanks. I would like to consider resolutions of this issue which do not involve duplication of content. I will edit the outline above to attempt to clarify one idea. To summarize: global warming 1st section after history, some general comments re: the notability of subject's activities in this policy area, followed by subsections on specific activities; next top-level section is "Other policy areas." What do you think? Hugh (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

How about just stopping. I have considered your suggestion. Others have too. This whole section was started by someone else disagreeing with you and nobody has agreed with you. Hoow about actually taking ion board that your suggestion is really bad. It shouldn't be put in. You don't have consensus on your side. You should stop. You have gone on about this far too long. You shou;ld stop going on and on. This is quite enough already. Dmcq (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

A fellow editor is attempting to dialog with you on a content issue on a talk page and all you can say is stop? Please limit your comments here to content. Thank you. The current organization of the article divides what we agree is the single most important topic climate into two pieces. The content consisting of general comments and introductory material on climate and to third party assessments of the impact of the subject of this article's activities with respect to climate is distantly separated from the particulars. This is non-neutral in that it dilutes the impact of this mutually related content on readers. The content that explains why so many 3rd parties have identified the subject of this article as a key player needs to be close to the specific reasons for those assessments. The heavy handed distinction between the "policy position" and the activities in support of advocacy of that position is harming the clarity and flow of the article. What possible reason might you have for this harsh division you have imposed? This is unfair to our readers. Cross-linking via anchors does not resolve the issue. How would you resolve this? Hugh (talk) 22:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

We both want the same thing, global warming front & center. Anyone familiar with the subject would want global warming prominent and early and complete. Hugh (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

You do not follow basic Wikipedia policy on consensus. You edit war trying to wear people down to shove in what you think is right. You do not seem to be able to change. You are not a fellow editor. Dmcq (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I haven't spent any time editing this page or participating in the talk page discussions because, frankly, politics, politicians, and organizations focused on politics bore me to tears. I have, however, been watching the edits to the page and reading the talk page comments. When it comes time to count consensus, please count me as supporting what Dmcq is trying to do here and opposing what HughD is trying to do here. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Same issue, November

Been a while since i've looked at this page, but... there are some major issues here. No one ever addressed the coatracking on the page. Why not? For those who are unfamiliar with these issues, read WP:COATRACKING. This article currently stands as an article on the institute's controversies, not as an article about the institute. This is a problem. Someone should address it, someone who has not been blocked for making disruptive, coatracking edits, already. DaltonCastle (talk) 02:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Supposed confusion with the Heartland Film Festival

Is it really necessary to have this note on the top? It says: "Not to be confused with the institute of the same name affiliated with the Heartland Film Festival." The pretty bare entry for the the Heartland Film Festival doesn't have the word "institute" in it. So, it stands to reason there is no "institute" associated with the film festival. It is not justified and should be removed. Jlakely (talk) 03:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Heartland asking people to edit this.

See http://blog.heartland.org/2016/02/whats-wrong-with-wikipedia/ (and the linked https://www.heartland.org/sites/default/files/whats_wrong_with_wikipedia.pdf). That was several days ago, though, and nothing seems to have happened William M. Connolley (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Note: Peter Thusat claimed that Heartland did no lobbying.

"22:51, 22 February 2016‎ PeterThusat (talk | contribs)‎ . . (78,668 bytes) (-992)‎ . . (Added historical and publications-related details, while corrected errors about "lobbying" -- which Heartland does not do."

Although my report is not claimed to be RS, it links to dozens documents in the TTID (Truth Tobacco Industry Documents) at UCSF. Those are internal industry documents, including letters from Joe Bast to tobacco companies telling them what Heartland could do for them, praising Joe Camel, etc. p.38 has a decade+ of Philip Morris funding, happily recorded by Roy Marden, PM exec who managed think tanks, and was on Heartland's Board. For example, p.40 has an image from TTID, showing what different think tanks promised Marden they would do.

Heartland: “Blast faxes to state legislators, off-the-record briefings, op-eds, radio interviews, letters."

Now, Heartland might call this "education," but others might possibly consider it lobbying in the general sense.

p.43 Bast to Marden (asking for more money): "Unlike any other free-market think tank, Heartland's primary audience is the nation's 7,500 state elected officials. We reach them more often, and generate from them more requests for research, than any other think tank in the country."

p.62 Summarizes data from 2012: Heartland was still getting money from PM (Altria) and Reynolds America.

Editors might want to read the dozen pages and check the links to assess Peter Thusat's claim. You can't cite my report, but it will save you time rummaging through the TTID looking at all the Heartland and Joe Bast items.JohnMashey (talk) 02:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Lobbying by Heartland (?)

Looks like some of Heartland's beef is about how WP describes it as a lobbying organization. (Rather, it sees itself as independent and not working on behalf of any particular client.) What RS do we have that describes Heartland as a lobbying organization. (I note that the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 requires federal lobbyists to register. Has Heartland done so?) – S. Rich (talk) 03:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

0) For the general topics (not Heartland), see Jane Mayer's recent "Dark Money" or Fallin, Grana and Glantz on ‘To quarterback behind the scenes, third-party efforts’: the tobacco industry and the Tea Party A big of this is also in the Oreskes and Conway book, although in less detail.

1) Please read that section of the report I mentioned above. Again, I make no claim that it is RS, but it has numerous references to internal tobacco company documents, and other sections refer to IRS Form 990s, and there is a great deal of analysis of Heartland Environment and Climate News, with examples.

2) The awkwardness of the lobbying term is that a lot of actions most people would consider lobbying are kept hidden, on purpose, which is not too hard, given the ambiguities of lobbying registration regulations. The tobacco industry in particular has long moved to using third parties. That's unsurprising: their entire business model depends on the fact that for most people, only during adolescent brain development (within ages 10-25, but at its peak 15-19) is nicotine addiction possible. Put simply, to stay in business they need to addict teenagers and kill many of them slowly. Oddly, legislators try not to be associated directly with that.

The TTID has many documents: a) Bast asking for money, touting Heartland's access to state/local governments (their focus, not Federal). b) Touting things like his article defending Joe Camel. c) Having a key PM executive on his board for a decade. d) Being asked, "what will you do to help" and responding by mentioning legislators and off-record meetings. e) Environment and Climate News had many smoking-supportive articles, and this is mailed to legislators.

Now, you can argue about whether or not TTID documents are RS for Wikipedia, although they are certainly heavily used as quite credible in court cases. If you read IRS Form 990s, you would never guess Heartland does all of the above ... but Big Tobacco pays for results, and they have funded Heartland over decades.

Anyway, much lobbying is not done by registered lobbyists, and a major function of some think tanks is do what most people owuld call lobbying, but with less traceability, bad enough at Federal level, but likelier messier in the states.≥ JohnMashey (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Changing “climate change denial” back to “global warming skeptics"

In the lead, this sentence is present: “More recently, the Heartland Institute is the primary American supporter of climate change denial.” Yet, for a good bit of 2015, the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead read: “The Heartland Institute is a prominent supporter of global warming skeptics,[2]”

The link has always been the same, going to the internal Wiki page climate change denial. Fine. That’s the link. But why the change in language in the lead? There was A LOT of discussion about this in the talk page back in February 2015 pushing back at why editor DMCQ changed it to “denial.” He LOST that extensive debate among experienced editors. But then, suddenly, in April, it was turned back to “denial” by someone not experienced in working on Heartland’s page. The matter was never discussed again. It should be discussed.

In Heartland’s entry, below in the sub-heading of “Global warming” this is stated: “The Heartland Institute disagrees with the scientific consensus on climate change, but does not dispute that climate change itself is occurring.”

This is true, and cited. So why is it accurate to say — in the language of the lead, if not the Wikipedia link — that Heartland “denies” climate change? It does not, as the entry below the lead makes clear. Should the lead misrepresent what comes below? It does now, and is a disservice to readers.

The lead should say, again: “The Heartland Institute is a prominent supporter of global warming skeptics.[2]” That is fair, neutral, and objectively consistent with the details further down in the entry. Jlakely (talk) 07:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Climate change denial is not defined as denying climate change. So claiming that HI doesn't deny that the climate changes is not sufficient reason to remove this label. TimOsborn (talk) 08:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

He LOST that extensive debate - I guess you're referring to Talk:The Heartland Institute/Archive_2#DMCQ_Edits inserting_.22Denier.22. But it doesn't obviously meet your description William M. Connolley (talk) 09:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Skepticism is a critical appraisal of the evidence, requiring proponents to justify their conclusions. Denial is taking a position against something and looking for evidence to support that stance. Heartland is a major part of the engine of denial, as the sources show quite clearly. They did not look at the data and ask if it supported the conclusions, they set about manufacturing data to support a conclusion driven by ideology. And that is why denial is the correct term. Guy (Help!) 10:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Well I certainly think denial is a correct summary of the sources. However I don't think 'the primary American supporter of' is supported by them, at most they say is a leading supporter of or are in the forefront of. Dmcq (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd agree that "primary" is a poor term. It certainly is the case that Heartland runs the largest and most publicized climate anti-science conferences (ICCCs), produces slick newsletters (E&CN) sent to most legislators in the US, and has done us a fine service by collecting names under its Heartland Experts website.JohnMashey (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

UNDUE in lede

The second paragraph in the lead focuses on 2 issues. The first is secondhand smoke, which is an old one. The second is the climate issue, which is is on-going. This paragraph needs to be re-written to be more general, to summarize what is in the main body of the text, and to be less POV. – S. Rich (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but what exactly is the problem? Being "old" or "on-going" are not inherent pov problems, nor have any sources been offered to demonstrate there is a problem. --Ronz (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

We should be guided by an important policy – WP:BALANCE. – S. Rich (talk) 03:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question at a level of detail that anyone can respond to. Balance of what? --Ronz (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

We don't "balance" fact with self-serving bullshit. The Heartland Institute is known almost exclusively for its role in protecting large corporations from necessary restriction on their ability to profit by putting others at risk. I am sure everyone there is kind to their mothers, and the group itself is strongly in favour of motherhood and apple pie, but that's not what they are known for and it's not what our readers are coming here to look up. Guy (Help!) 16:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

In accordance with the important policy of WP:BALANCE. including WP:GEVAL, I've modified the wording, splitting the paragraph so that each paragraph covers one of these main points of the article. The other lesser topics are already covered in the first paragraph. Of course if editors think they should be given more weight in the lead, they're welcome to put forward proposed wording with sources which support their assessment of the significance of these topics. Without such proposals, there's no justification for tagging the lead. . . dave souza, talk 18:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The 2014 McGann report gives HI high ratings in various categories. This is a real world indication that HI has greater impact on issues other than the old second-hand smoke controversy or later climate change issue. The article, in general, should be more informative in that regard. But we are letting POV skew our editing efforts when the lede unduly summaries the critical articles/topics. (The tagging has served to stimulate some change.) – S. Rich (talk) 19:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not clear what you're referring to. The McGann 2015 reference, currently #38 in the references, only mentions HI as an entry in five categories and as a think tank that does not divulge its donors. I don't know how we can use this to change the pov of this article, or claim the pov needs change. We already mention it's donor policy and why. We've no other context to work from, only the categories: #28 in "Best New Idea or Paradigm Developed by a Think Tank", #40 in "Best Think Tank Network", #43 in "Best Use of Social Networks", #19 in "Think Tank to Watch", #69 in "Think Tanks with the Most Significant Impact on Public Policy". Am I missing something? --Ronz (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Bibliography of Heartland Institute publications

Hi. I would like to open a conversation in regard to building an accurate bibliography, from a catalog such as WorldCat , 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) 00:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

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) 16:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

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) 17:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

References

editing climate change language in intro and language on K-12 ed

In the body, it says (quite accurately) that the Heartland Institute "...does not dispute that climate change itself is occurring. Rather, it says that human activities are not driving climate change, the amount of climate change is not catastrophic, and might be beneficial, and that the economic costs of trying to mitigate climate change exceed the benefits."

In the intro, it says that Heartland is "a leading supporter of climate change denial. It rejects the scientific consensus on global warming, disputes that human activity is driving the warming, and says that policies to fight it would be damaging to the economy."

The intro is reductionistic, misleading, inflammatory, and inconsistent with what's in the body. I suggest this: "...a leading supporter of climate change denial. It does not dispute that climate change is occurring, but it rejects the scientific consensus on global warming; disputes that human activity is driving the warming; argues that it is not catastrophic (and may be beneficial); and notes that policies to fight it would be damaging to the economy."

On education, the language is imprecise and can be improved. I suggest the following: "The Heartland Institute supports the increased availability of (public) charter schools, providing education tax credits to attend private schools, expanding federal vouchers for low-income students to attend a public or private school of their family's choosing, and the Parent Trigger reform that started in California. The Institute supports the introduction of market reforms into the public education system to increase competition and provide more options and greater choice for parents and their children."

Now what? I'm new to this, so I appreciate your patience and guidance in advance...ericatius------Ericatius (talk) 02:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The lede should summarize and introduce the topic. It's not the location for addressing fine details. In order to meet WP:NOT and WP:POV criteria, the lede should be based upon third-party sources whose viewpoints can be presented in Wikipedia's voice or with little qualification. Neither the lede nor the article should serve as a soapbox for the institute. --Ronz (talk) 15:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, but the current summary/introduction on climate change / global warming is poorly done; it does not accurately reflect what follows in the body. And your comment is not relevant to my proposed edits on the education paragraph in the body. Are you good with those? --Ericatius (talk) 16:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, are you saying your edits are based upon the pov of third-party sources? --Ronz (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so. That was your claim, I think, right? No, the CC/GW intro edits are trying to align the lede with the body. And the education edits are for clarity. I understand that the lede should not be so weighty, but do you see the inconsistencies between the lede and the body. If so, what edits do you suggest? What wording do you find troubling in my edits on the education piece?--Ericatius (talk) 01:46, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the rest of us are having a little trouble understanding your perspective. For example what, exactly, about the original wording is "inflammatory"? It would be helpful if you could be a little more specific.

Further, your suggested wording on climate is a bit hard to untangle -- long sentences often are like that. Obviously you know what you mean but I think the rest of us are having trouble. Anything you can do to make your suggested wording clearer and more direct would be helpful.

The biggest substantive problem is that your suggestion appears to bridge "rejects the scientific consensus" with "the amount of climate change is not catastrophic." The scientific consensus doesn't say whether the amount of warming is catastrophic or not. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

1.) Let's start with the education wording then. Are there problems with my edits there? So far, the comments have focused on GW / CC. If none, let's wrap that part up so we can focus on CC/GW. Cool? Anyone have a beef there?

2.) As for CC/GW... a.) The lede says HI is “a leading supporter of CC denial”. The body says that HI “disagrees with the scientific consensus on CC” (quite a bit milder) and “does not dispute that CC itself is occurring” (which contradicts the claim in the lede). The body is supported by documentation, so it would seem that the lede should be modified. b.) The lede omits the vital point that HI sees CC as “not catastrophic” and has benefits (which are often ignored). I know that the lede can't carry as much weight as the body, but that seems like a huge omission to me. c.) The “economics” of CC/GW in the body are (far) better stated than in the lede. I'd change that if it were up to me, but that by itself is not worth a quibble. --Ericatius (talk) 03:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

As to your point (a) there is no contradiction. The Heartland Institute currently disputes that human activity is the major cause of the warming therefore it is contradicting the scientific opinion on it. It is a major supporter of climate change denial and whilst in the past it tried to say there was no such thinng it is now saying there is no point trying to do anything about it as it is a natural effect that is outside human control and that it could be good thing. I don't see what is the point of saying it does not see it as catastrophic when it says that it thinks efforts to fight it would damage the economy. The lead is supposed to summarize the article. It would be very silly if the economics aspect or anything else was described better in the lead than the body. Overall I can see you think you have a point but I simply cannot see it from what you have said.

On education the problem is that there is very little in secondary sources about its position which makes it difficult to decide what should go into the lead. A lot of the section in the article is based on what it says itself so it can't be given much weight. For instance why in your summary do you not include that they oppose the common core curriculum which is seen by many as essential in improving standards, making it possible to compare standards, and enabling costs to be brought down? Dmcq (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

If the edits are not based up viewpoints from third-party sources, then they probably don't belong per WP:NOT and WP:NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

1.) On education, I wasn't trying to make any edits to the lede, so I don't understand DMCQ's comment. I wasn't trying to add new material, so I don't understand Ronz's comment.

2a.) How can HI be a leading supporter of CC denial while not disputing that CC is occurring? (Is it part of the definition of "CC denial" that you don't have to deny the occurrence of CC?) How can you say something happens while denying it exists?

b&c.) I think it's a big omission, but the lede can only do so much (and good people can disagree on the extent to which the lede should carry weight) and I'm satisfied with the body on those two points. --Ericatius (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

It would have been better to set up two separate sections. Having the educaton one not only be about a different subject but also not in the lead like the other one is just confusing matters.

See climate change denial, the first sentence is "Climate change denial, or global warming denial, involves denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt about the scientific consensus on the rate and extent of global warming, or about the extent to which it is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential for human actions to reduce these impacts." Dmcq (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah perhaps, but here we are. And with the numbers, it's easy enough to follow along. 2.) Thanks for that, DMCQ. If one can "deny" CC while not denying its existence, I guess we'll have to live with the incoherence of Wikipedia's definition. 1.) If there isn't a reason to disallow my modest edits on the education portion of the body, I'll go back and take care of those again.--Ericatius (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

It isn't incoherent, it is basically what denialism and climate change denial in particular is about. They want people to avoid the uncomfortable truth and enable industry to continue on as it has done, what they call libertarian policies. They might even believe what they say for all I know, perhaps they think some libertarian God will come and reward them with a miracle for their firm faith. Dmcq (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

See Cornwall Alliance#An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, though as climate change denial indicates, that's only part of the spectrum of denial. . . . dave souza, talk 08:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. So lots of people actually do believe something like that. That's truly amazing. They actually say 'we deny' as well rather than trying to make out they are skeptics. Dmcq (talk) 11:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

In 2009, they agreed that they "deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming." Thanks Dave for that cite and the reference to this as a spectrum. One mark of legalism is reducing a spectrum to a 0/1; one mark of fundamentalism ("religious" or otherwise) is trouble with nuance and context. --Ericatius (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Rather strange leaps were being made in the intro, it is unclear from the Abe Streep source whether the characterization of the consensus and its rejection were his characterization of statements that might be quite different or paraphrases of things that were actually said. It would have helped if Streep provided quotations instead. It is possible that Heartland may have mistated the "consensus". The consensus is that the human contribution is significant, not that the warming will be catastrophic. The misunderstanding of the consensus may have be Streep's, few people actually have informed opinions on climate science. Poodleboy (talk) 08:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The only mention of "catastrophic" in the article is the HI's claim that the amount of climate change isn't catastrophic, and that's not a boundary to climate change denial, which the HI has prominently been promoting. . dave souza, talk 18:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

As I continue my work, I am finding that sources are being used uncritically. No one is looking at them to figure out whether they are data or opinion, whether they have attributed quotes to support their statements, or whether they are mere personal and perhaps biased characterizations. And that is just in the second paragraph of the intro, what will I find later on? Poodleboy (talk) 08:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Please raise your concerns in the talk page with specific points and good quality sources, don't misuse inline attribution to give undue weight to the fringe views promoted by the HI. . dave souza, talk 18:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Properly attributing opinions to sources is not giving *ANY* weight to fringe views. If these sources are not good quality, we should be removing them, not citing them for the truth of any matter. The only source that was HI, was the reference to the writings of BAST and a co-author. It was already in the intro and had to be properly attributed as well in order to avoid attributing to the authors of the prior statement, if you think that was giving it undue weight, would you be OK with eliminating that statement rather than attributing it? Or we could eliminate his title as "president" if you thought that gave it too much weight? Poodleboy (talk) 07:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I have to say I dont recall ever seen the prominence of qualification of sources in the lede that I just removed [1]. If these are minority viewpoints, then why do they belong in the lede at all? If on the other hand they are important enough to be in the lede, such qualification (especially at the beginning of the sentence), seems to be an attempt to undermine the importance of the viewpoints. --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree these viewpoints don't belong in the lead, because they can't stand as true unattributed. The probably should not be interleaved in argumentative fashion in subsequent sections either. Perhaps there should be a criticisms or hateful characterizations of HI section where they would be appropriate. Allowing them in without attribution overstates their importance. Poodleboy (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The Heartland Institute#2012 documents incident edits

@Poodleboy: This edit and revert regarding Peter Gleick do not reflect the cited sources. Your edit summary on the revert: y changes corrected a version that was not clearly source. You are welcome to quote the source on talk, if you can. does not conform to wp:verifiability. Please cite a wp:reliable source. Jim1138 (talk) 03:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Examine the source and quote support for the false statement that "found that the documents were authentic and none were forged" that you keep reverting to. You can't. Your failure to actually say something of substance shows lack of good faith. Poodleboy (talk) 08:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I think I agree with Poodleboy on this. They found that he had not forged any documents. That is not the same as that none of the documents was forged. Dmcq (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@Dmcq: The current one fits the source the previous two did not as far as I could discern. Was it necessary for Poodleboy to edit war rather than discuss it here? Jim1138 (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps it was necessary. Is necessity the standard? Did you check whether the version you reverted to was supported by the source, or did you just do a fly-by revert? The first one you reverted was my 2nd attempt at a version that got the unsupported mis-reading of the source out of there. It was at least closer to what the Guardian was inferring than the original. Both that version and the Guardian story, were beyond the board's actual statement. The rather tepid exoneration/reinstatement statement by the board of the foundation Gleick founded, probably should have been left to the Gleick article. Poodleboy (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@AaronMFeld: The point is, per wp:BRD you need to discuss things in talk before reverting again: i.e. wp:edit warring. The state of the article should remain original. Then get wp:consensus before adding any changes. Presumably, you have read policy on the matter? The bad faith here is your unwillingness to discuss and achieve consensus. Jim1138 (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

The ultimate goal is to get it right, when it comes to bad faith, you are the one restoring an erroneous characterization, doing a flyby revert. "not clearly sourced", really? That might have credible if you knew whether the version you reverted to was clearly sourced.Poodleboy (talk) 03:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we have a reliable source for whether there was a forged document or not. Phrasing it as if there was one is not right. It is also not right to say all the documents were not forged. What we have is that he was exonerated of forging any documents. I agree with putting in what the director said but see no point in quoting it so I'll remove the quotes and paraphrase. Dmcq (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm OK with the new language, although his apology is redundant to some extent of text earlier in the section. "exonerated" overstates the board statement. The Guardian was skeptical of the board even going to "supported", since they wouldn't elaborate, or supply the independent findings. I suspect the board produced the most generous characterization of the independent findings it could. Do you think "agreed he had accurately described" might be a little stronger and more detailed than is justified? Poodleboy (talk) 03:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Have you got anything to indicate the assessment of the independent counsel was wrong? Or would you prefer it to just say that they found he did not forge any document which in essence is what they were saying? Anyway I didn't say or imply 'exonerated', he had to apologize for misappropriating documents. IIf the apology was left out it would look like it was okay to do that sort of thing and that he was exonerated of everything. Dmcq (talk) 07:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Everything we know about the independent investigation is through that statement by the board and was the phrase that I quoted. We don't know if they really said "support", that is the board's characterization.Poodleboy (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Lede removal

I've twice now reverted this removal, as the content removed appears to be well sourced to weighty RS. Please discuss and get consensus here before reverting again. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

You have twice now reverted removal, please discuss here and get consensus before reverting again. Poodleboy (talk) 03:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

It is you who needs consensus for removal as the statements are well sourced and relevant. This is an encyclopaedia not a newspaper where only the last week is documented. Dmcq (talk) 09:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

How is "last week documented" relevant to the discussion? Poodleboy (talk) 09:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

You removed the bit about their fight to stop restrictions on smoking. The bit about climate is covered above. Dmcq (talk) 10:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I removed unattributed opinion about working with Phillip Morris, which differs from HI statement of its policy. I had previously just attributed the opinion, but someone evidently thought knowing whose opinion it was gives it less weight. It shouldn't be in the intro. It helps to review the history. Poodleboy (talk) 11:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Could you be a bit clearer about what you mean by 'unattributed opinion' when there is a citation from a reliable source on the sentence? Dmcq (talk) 00:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

That would be sufficient if the text was put in for the truth of the matter, but the text is opinion and arguably false, not attributing the opinion gives it undue weight.Poodleboy (talk) 01:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway are both respected historians of science and what is said there is documented in the source. I don't know where you get the idea that there is any doubt about what they said about the Heartland Institute and smoking is anything but the plain unvarnished truth. Please provide a contrary source before going on with this sort of thing. Dmcq (talk) 08:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

They are credentialed and their work for the cause earns them Anita Hill levels of praise, but the work of Oreskes is an embarrassment to science, surveying abstracts for gosh sakes. When it comes to Heartland, their conclusions are their opinions, and the evidence hardly speaks for itself. Bast soliciting a paltry $30,000 in 1999 from Phillip Morris 3 years after writing his Joe Camel essay is hardly "working with". The Heartland Institute's opinion is equally valid, that they keep any researchers at arms length from any funders influence, and their opposition to environmental regulation extends far beyond just skepticism of second hand smoke back at the time when there was little published evidence to support the fear mongering and when their values regardless of evidence and funding would dictate opposition to regulation. "Working with" is an opinion. Selective citing of specifics, without perspective introduces POV bias into the article, the type of bias through innuendo and association Oreskes set out to produce. The ACLU had a far more extensive involvement with the tobacco regulation debate, and the small Heartland Institute and its pamphlets and is policy positions had far broader environmental regulation concerns than just tobacco.Poodleboy (talk) 10:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

That is all your own research and as far as I can see is just waffle with little relevance. Please provide a citation that I can look at. Dmcq (talk) 10:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

By the way I see HI still supports 'smokers rights', see [2] where they say 'The public health community's campaign to demonize smokers and all forms of tobacco is based on junk science' and yet a few statements on say 'The harm caused by smoking can be reduced by educating smokers about safer options such as electronic cigarettes and smokeless tobacco'! I remember when I first started work getting headaches and smarting eyes from the smokers and I can say I am absolutely and totally glad those days are past and them paying taxes does not entitle them to cause me harm. Dmcq (talk) 10:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Every risk doesn't require a regulation. Since HI's position was a matter of principle, you wouldn't expect it to disappear just because the funding was gone, would you?. The ACLU stuff was just apparent from searches trying to find HI information in tobacco documents. I'm not trying to put that in the article. HI's positions are available here: [3]. Hopefully you can recognized the "waffle with little relevance" that is in the article as well Poodleboy (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Well I am altogether glad regulations have stopped people thinking they have a right to give me a headache. Dmcq (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Let's focus on accurately portraying what is in the sources instead of arguing the merits of each side of the global warming debate and the tobacco debate. We are here to improve the article, not to "win".Trackerbot2291 (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The working with hit piece opinions should not be in the lead, and they should be explicitly attributed when they appear below. I reviewed the paltry original sources, and if Heartland was working with Phillip Morris then the ACLU was owned by Phillip Morris. Heartland claims a firewall between contributions and their research staff, and the original sources support that. Phillip Morris' key contact with Heartland brags about convincing some HI staffer of some position, something that would be hardly remarkable if they were working together, it is more as if they encountered each other at some conference and he informed the HI staffer of some statistical or technical point. Bast was seeking a paltry sum 3 years after writing an essay. The authors are entitled to their opinion, but it should be identified as such and not stated as the unattributed truth of the matter in the lead. HI still champions smokers rights against what it views as excessive regulation. It claims what it does is not lobbying, it probably can't be lobbying based upon their tax status, so claiming it is, is accusing HI of a crime. That should be attributed to the source, wikipedia should not stand as the source of such an accusation. Such opinions should be explicitly attributed.Poodleboy (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

So we're supposed to just accept your own research over that of the authors? How about I go around and for instance I see that Philip Morris was a platinum sponsor to Heartland Institute and entitled to special promotion? Is that not acceptable by your standards? How about we just stick to reliable sources without OR? Dmcq (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Dmcq (here and throughout these discussions). Edit-warring based upon personal opinions will only result in a block. --Ronz (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The Heartland Institute disagrees with the scientific consensus on climate change

This statement is problematic and misleading. There is little doubt that HI disagreed in 1998 with a scientific consensus that was not established in the literature until later, yet the statement is presented as if it is HI's current position. I see no indication that HI disagrees with the consensus that the human contribution is significant, as documented in the 2009 Doran and Zimmerman paper. Citations are needed for HI's current position. Poodleboy (talk) 08:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

There is no reference to the Heartland Institute in that. Basically as you say you need a citation for their current position if you believe it has changed significantly. The Heartland Institute does currently have a policy paper [4] which runs down that paper so I can't see why one would think they agree with the criteria in it. Dmcq (talk) 09:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

In that critique, Heartland agrees with the consensus as stated in Doran and Zimmerman: "Most skeptics would answer those two questions the same way as alarmists would. 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;" Their critique is with the quality and interpretations of the paper. Poodleboy (talk) 14:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

This Heartland statement updated September 01, 2015 is profoundly at odds with the scientific consensus. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? Heartland is correct that the rapid warming of 80s and 90s was mostly natural as was the pause in the warming trend since then, the underlying trend of 0.1C per decade is rather tepid. They don't question a human contribution that is significant, just consider this warming pretty small. That places them within the consensus. Poodleboy (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

"Profoundly" is a bit of an overstatement.

• The scientific consensus is that CO₂ is a greenhouse gas which can lead to warming. As you know, there are some wackos who dispute that fact, but the Heartland statement expresses agreement with that fact.
• The scientific consensus is that there has been warming in the 20th century. As you know, there are some wackos who dispute that, but the Heartland statement expresses agreement with that fact.
• The scientific consensus is that human activities played a significant role in the rising temperatures, although the contribution of human activities is not completely settled. The Heartland statement suggest a little more uncertainty than the scientific consensus. The Heartland statement does not contend, as some wackos have contended that human activities play no role.
• The Heartland statement suggests two thirds of the warming in the 90's is natural, implying one third is due to human activities. The scientific consensus is for a higher proportion of human activity contributions. This is a difference, but hardly profound.
• Heartland states that the warming trend has already stopped. Scientists do not accept this. It is a fact there is a long recent period through which a zero trendline fits, but the Heartland is ahead of themselves when they conclude that this means the warming trend has stopped.

In summary, it is fair to say that the Heartland position is not fully embracing of the scientific consensus. There are differences, and with respect to some aspects of the larger question, especially politically inspired proposals for addressing the issue, they are very much in disagreement. However I think it's an overstatement to equate state that their position on the scientific consensus is profoundly in disagreement.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

While I agree that you properly state where the literature is trending, your details go beyond any "consensus" that has actually been measured. Considering that the hiatus and the climate sensitivity to CO2 forcing are still highly active areas of research, I doubt the consensus can be stated as detailed as you present it. Poodleboy (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about where you disagree with my summary? I agree that climate sensitivity is a big issue (and deserves far more discussion) but I didn't mention it. The hiatus is still a subject of debate, but I don't think a consensus of scientists yet disagree with the claim that it is a statistical anomaly and consistent with a long-term trend.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I should note that your two-thirds reference mistates their position, they were referring to just the 90s. I don't see how they get much above 50% myself. Poodleboy (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Fair point, corrected.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The problem with attributing most of the warming to human emissions greenhouse gasses, is that the proportion of the warming attributable to humans varies, probably less than half of the rapid warming of the 80s and 90s was anthropogenic, since that was due to natural positive phases of multidecade ocean and tradewind modes. But if you take the longer view, which includes complete natural cycles, i.e., the mid-century cooling and the recent pause, then nearly all the warming is anthropogenic. Note that in earlier IPCC reports, the consensus would have been a high level of confidence that nearly all the rapid warming of the 80s and 90s was anthropogenic. Note also that since that time the relative proportion of any anthropogic warming attributed to black carbon has increased.

Here is just one of the results coming to terms with the midcentury cooling and the recent pause in the journal Science. Its hiatus hypothesis argues for a heat sink and cyclic modes in the Atlantic rather than the Pacific, and referencing the other paper.

The press release contained these two statements:

"Rapid warming in the last three decades of the 20th century, they found, was roughly half due to global warming and half to the natural Atlantic Ocean cycle that kept more heat near the surface."

"The authors dug up historical data to show that the cooling in the three decades between 1945 to 1975 – which caused people to worry about the start of an Ice Age – was during a cooling phase. (It was thought to be caused by air pollution.)"

Here are the press release and paper:

http://www.washington.edu/news/2014/08/21/cause-of-global-warming-hiatus-found-deep-in-the-atlantic-ocean/

http://www.sisal.unam.mx/labeco/LAB_ECOLOGIA/OF_files/heat%20sink%20led%20to%20global-warming%20slowdown.pdf

Poodleboy (talk) 14:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Poodleboy: if you would like to ramble on about something new, please start a new section. This section is about whether the "Heartland Institute disagrees with the scientific consensus on climate change". Bringing in your own views and random articles related to climate change issues, which do not mention Heartland, doesn't help address the question.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The cited work backed up the two thirds you cited with "roughly half", showing that HI was less far off base than you implied. I guess I should have mentioned HI? Poodleboy (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Why do you need "implied"? Why not go with what I said? I said it was different. HI says one third. If you can find a scientific consensus that says one third, then you are right. If you cannot, then my original statement was fine.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with what you are claiming is the consensus, versus what is just a good summary of the current state of the literature, although you didn't seem to understand that leading explanations of the hiatus are also explaining the rapid warming of the 80s and 90s and the mid-century cooling as well. It is difficult to specifically dispute HI's two thirds for the 90s because most work isn't that specific to the 90s and they didn't reference how they got there. Most scientists do believe that the warming will pick up again, as do the leading hypotheses about the hiatus. I suspect that HI believes that as well and is just being opportunistic by leaving it hanging. But the documented consensus doesn't extend to these issues. Poodleboy (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

"I disagree with what you are claiming is the consensus". Please be specific. Quote my statement, and explain what is wrong. FWIW, this is an extremely complicated issue, and I was being casual in my summary. If you wish to nitpick, take it elsewhere. If you think I materially mistated the IPCC consensus, please identify my statement and your view of the error.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Your interpretations of the scientific consensus are interesting and original. We summarize the consensus position here. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

By "your", whom do you mean?--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Technically that page is about scientific opinion and not about any documented consensus, it cherry picks mixing in far more AR4 quotes than IPCC AR5 quotes, and even those are produced through a process that is more political than consensus. AR5 backed off from claims attributing most of the warming to GHGs including other anthropogenic forcings, it backed off from "most" to the more specific "more than half" per IPCC AR5 SPM (Summary for Policy Makers) statement, and even more true today with 4 more years of "the pause":

“It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together"

Poodleboy (talk) 16:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Can we get back on task? I tried to collapse your off-topic discussion, but my attempt to get this discussion back on track was reverted, so we will have to do it the old-fashioned way. Please note the section heading "The Heartland Institute disagrees with the scientific consensus on climate change". Discussion of the deep ocean warming theory are relevant to a discussion of how much warming was natural versus anthropogenic, but are not relevant to whether HI's position is in agreement with scientific consensus, which is shorthand for the IPCC position.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Convenience break

Can we return to your original points? I'll summarize them as follows, feel free to let me know if you prefer a different summary.

1. The statement The Heartland Institute disagrees with the scientific consensus on climate change needs a citation.
2. HI agrees that with consensus that the human contribution is significant. (Technically, you had a double negative, which I've converted to an affirmative statement)
3. Citations are needed for HI's current position

Regarding #1, I agree. As written it is a hamfisted summary of a complicated position. There are even scientists who help write the IPCC documents who disagree with some conclusions. We need two things - a more nuanced claim, and a citation to back it up. I think it is fair to say that HI agrees with many things in the IPCC report, but disagrees, in some cases strongly, with others aspects of the report. I'm not proposing this as an actual wording replacement, just want to see if editors are in agreement.

Regarding #2, am I right that this is in response to the article statement that Rather, it says that human activities are not driving climate change? I agree that a discussion about a citation is warranted, as I don't think that is their position. Ideally, we will find their position, and rewrite the statement to match their position.

Regarding point #3, I agree, and have specifically discussed two of the cite needed tags. There is also the lead sentence, but we should first address the issues in the body, then rewrite, if necessary, the lead.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your statements here. But disagree with your phrase above "IPCC consensus". IPCC reports are a summary by the authors, but the reports while a substantial effort and a good comprehensive summary, they don't rise to the level of consensus or peer review. While there are expert reviews giving feedback to the authors that they are required to respond to, whether they accept or reject the review points is up to them. Poodleboy (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding point #2, the scientific consensus is not that "the human contribution is significant" but that the human contribution is dominant. As stated in AR5, "It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period." Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The "consensus" is not what a few IPCC authors write, who knows how many agree with that. The consensus is what is published in the peer review as some kind of assessment of a consensus level agreement. See in my next comment at the current bottom. Poodleboy (talk) 03:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the Heartland statement linked above, it is clear that they (HI) agree that global warming has and will occur. However, they disagree that global warming is a crises, etc. Encyclopedic editing demands that their position be stated clearly (and without smearing them). Given that this is a controversial issue (that is, the true/accurate nature of HI's position), the description in the lede needs an NPOV approach. Something like "HI has expressed skepticism about the causes, extent, and seriousness of global warming. Other organizations have criticized the Institute for these views." The article body is the best place to flesh out these statements. – S. Rich (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

That is a reasonable approach, it seems unreasonable to have to fight something in the intro that is unable to be justified below. HI is definitely skeptical of the extent and seriousness of GW, and identifies as skeptics. While they may have held out hope for significant role for solar in the past, they have accepted the consensus significant anthropogenic cause.Poodleboy (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Looking at what the Heartland Institute says in [5] it is pretty clear to me they are still denying the consensus position documented by the IPCC. There is no smear involved, they are proud of what they are doing. I think what is in the lead is a good short description of their position. Dmcq (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

As has been discussed in some detail above, there are many aspects to the consensus. HI agrees with some, have minor differences on some and more substantive differences on others. The bald statement "rejects the scientific consensus on global warming" is not an accurate summary of their position. If you still think so, why?--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The consensus is established by peer review trying to assess the level of agreement, not by a few authors. If you want to say the HI disagrees with a few IPCC authors that is one thing, if you want to say they deny the consensus that is another. The most cited 97% number is from the 2009 Doran and Zimmerman paper.

"In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2." [6]

Here are the poll questions:

Q1. When compared with pre-1800's levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

1. Risen

2. Fallen

3. Remained relatively constant

4. No opinion/Don't know

Q2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

[This question wasn't asked if they answered "remained relatively constant" to Q1]

1. Yes

2. No

3. I'm not sure

The reported consensus is the 97% that answered yes to question 2, "human activity is a significant contributing factor", i.e., significant, not dominant, not most. It is a position most skeptics can agree to. Skeptics are part of the consensus. Poodleboy (talk) 03:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Could you stop doing WP:OR and refer to things which mention the Heartland Institute thanks? Picking and choosing surveys to find bits where they are not so specific shows very little and is not how Wikipedia works. What you need is citations which are relevant to the topic. If you can find a reliable source that says what you are saying then that would be useful for the discussion. At the very beginning of [7] they say 'the warming trend already has stopped'. That is simply not consistent with agreeing that global warming is happening. Dmcq (talk) 09:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

It is WP:OR to conclude that discussion of the pause or hiatus is not consistent with global warming is happening. Do you think global warming wasn't happening during the mid-century cooling, also? The IPCC discussed the hiatus in AR5 and IPCC authors have published on the hiatus.Poodleboy (talk) 15:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

What happened during that Global warming hiatus was that there were some indications global temperature didn't rise so fast as in the previous few years, not that it stopped rising. Yes saying global warming is not happening is inconsistent with saying global warming is happening. And even if the hiatus had been an actual stop like the Heartland Institute seems to be trying to make out that would still be denying the consensus that it was in general rising. Dmcq (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

The trend during the hiatus has not been statistically significant. The consensus statement is that temperatures have "generally risen" and that "the human contribution is significant". BTW, the hiatus may now be over, we have to see what the response is after this el Nino. These are exciting times for climate science. Poodleboy (talk) 02:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

What you say about the hiatus is not supported by the article I linked to. You'd only get 'not statistically significant' if you are careful to ignore known causes of variability and choose your period carefully. Dmcq (talk) 08:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

If you are referring to the wikipedia article on the pause, the evidence that the trends during the pause are not statistically significant or different from zero are in these figures "0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C" and "0.07 [–0.02 to 0.18] °C". Note that a negative or cooling trend is within the range. There is an extensive literature on the hiatus, I've seen articles picking 1995, 1997, 1998, 2000 and 2001 as beginning years. I've usual analyzed lengths of periods are 10, 15, or 16 years. Poodleboy (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Poodleboy, your attempt to downplay the importance of the IPCC assessment (and to consequently downplay the notability of HI's disagreement with the IPCC assessment) by dismissing it as the non-peer-reviewed views of "a few IPCC authors" is misleading. [Disclosure: I have previously been an author of part of IPCC WGI assessment reports.] The starting point for the IPCC assessments is the peer-reviewed literature. This provides both breadth (i.e. it is not just the views of "a few", but derives from the findings of many published scientists) and peer-review of the underlying findings. These aspects are then strengthened through the various drafting and review stages, specifically by challenge from the large author team, from the TSU, from the open external expert reviews, from external review by government employed/appointed experts, and from the review editors' oversight of the review process. My personal opinion is that some elements of this process can be better (they already improved for AR5), such as a more transparent process to select authors, yet stronger role of review editors, and more open communication of the approval process to dispel the strange and incorrect notion that these are political rather than scientific reports -- but despite there being room for improvement, the IPCC assessments are a good indication of the current scientific consensus and it is misleading to dismiss them as you seem to try. TimOsborn (talk) 09:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I too have participated in the IPCC WG1 process, and I agree that the AR5 reforms are an improvement. While the authors have to respond to the expert reviews there is no followup requiring them to be really responsive. But what is essentially a review of the literature is not an assessment of the level of consensus. I don't dismiss the reports as a review but simply of attempts to make more of them. The most important levels of confidence do end up being political. There is hesitancy to displease the governments and to report lower confidence than in the prior reports, despite advances in the diagnostic analsyses that show that both prior and current confidence was unjustified. The intellectual facileness reaches its highest level in the uncritical parroting of model projections. Despite all the published diagnostic issues there is no attempt to provide an error or confidence range for the models. Sorry but the range of model sensitivities and scenarios just doesn't cut it. A population range is not an error range. My interest here at HI is limited, they are skeptics, luke warmers and disagreeing with the IPCC is not disagreeing with the consensus. Incorporating unsourced opinion attacking them is just endorsing name calling. Poodleboy (talk) 10:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

And your response isn't really responsive to my comment ;-) This isn't a blog, it's for things directly related to improving the HI wiki page. I agree that IPCC does not (at least not directly) assess the level of consensus, but it does provide a reasonable description of what the consensus is -- and that is relevant when stating (or not) that HI rejects the consensus. I didn't observe any hesistancy to displease governments during the process nor any political influence on stated levels of consensus. TimOsborn (talk) 11:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

A good illustration and reductio ad absurdem of your statement that the reports is a reasonable description of the consensus rather than a mere review is this statement "No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies” (SPM-11, fn 16) Is that statement the consensus? The authors at either end of the spectrum would probably disagree, thinking that they could give a best estimate. BTW, whether the IPCC is the consensus, is relevant to the HI editing, given the consensus text being proposed. I know the authors refused to adjust their confidence for documented errors larger than the GHG forcing. Poodleboy (talk) 12:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

No, that's only a useful illustration if you begin with the false idea that consensus means a single position. Where a range of outcomes is consistent with the available lines of evidence, the assessment is a range which may or may not have a best estimate within the range. And this assessment can equally well represent a consensus position that, given current evidence, there is a range of reasonable possibilities. So, yes, the quoted statement could be the consensus. Can you provide a wp:reliable source for your final claim? If not, then this isn't a suitable forum. TimOsborn (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

This review position is not about a range, but rather a divergence of results from different approaches. A mere range has not prevented a best estimate in the past. Woe be to those scientists who have dared to publish best estimates. They are now outside the "consensus".Poodleboy (talk) 07:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The only point I can see for your religious type language is you want to talk to religious people and say they should be against the science because it does not have a definite laid down dogma like a proper religion does. Religious people may be against other religions, but what seems to really irk them is people who aren't religious. Dmcq (talk) 10:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

There are scientists at the time of and since the AR5 review, who have given best estimates of the climate sensitivity, including one who specifically thank Tim Osborn for his assistance. The global temperature increase, for a CO2 doubling, is found to lie (95% confidence limits) between 3.0 and 6.3C, with a best estimate of +4C. ... David Stevenson and Tim Osborn are thanked for helpful discussions.[8] Are Roy Thompson and others deniers of the "consensus" that no best estimate can be given? If I looked, perhaps I would even find a WG1 lead author who gave a best estimate. The IPCC reports are just be big review of the literature with non-peer reviews summary opinions, not a consensus. Poodleboy (talk) 06:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

No they are not. If you really want to find an answer may I suggest you look at List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. They have all been described by a secondary source as opposing the consensus or words to that effect. Try and find one of them who is on that list for saying they can give a good estimate of something where the IPCC has said there is no consensus. You are simply indulging in WP:OR again and with reasoning that has no evidence of any general acceptance. Go to some outside forum if you want to indulge in rhetoric. Dmcq (talk) 08:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

You are missing the thread of the discussion. Since the IPCC reports are just reviews of the current state of the literature, a lot of their summaries are going to have lower levels of confidence and/or agreement or just inconclusive. To say that all these are "consensus" is ridiculous. Just because a dozen or so lead authors can reach a consensus on a best estimate of climate sensitivity, doesn't mean that is the consensus of the climate community in general, there are many conflicting claims of what the best estimate should be. If no best estimate can be given is the consensus, the ridiculous result is that those who do think they can give a best estimate are now deniers of this consensusPoodleboy (talk) 09:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

That is WP:OR on your part. It is also not generally recognized reasoning as you can show for yourself by following the fact checking route I showed you. It is also irrelevant to the topic of this discussion and not aimed at improving the article. This is not a forum. Dmcq (talk) 09:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

That is a violation of WP:AGF on your part. This is too a forum for working out what are acceptable sources and whether they support the material in the article. We are not supposed to work this out in edit wars. Poodleboy (talk) 09:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I think you act in a disruptive way disregarding Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, it could easily be in good faith but it really doesn't matter what the reason is. There are noticeboards for deciding whether sources count as reliable sources WP:RSN, and for deciding whether things are original research WP:ORN. If you have a query on questions like that ask at those boards. However as far as I can see you are using this talk page as a forum for your own thoughts and you have done that in a number of talk pages over a while despite the problem being pointed out to you on a number of occasions. Exactly what source are you talking about, does it mention the Heartland Institute and does it make the point you are trying to make? Dmcq (talk) 10:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

This discussion is about the claim that the IPCC reports are consensus. Do you have something to contribute? You see the problem is the reports are quite extensive, making the claim rather unlimited. So deciding which IPCC AR5 claims are consensus and which are not is WP:OR. Poodleboy (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

We don't have to make any such decisions here. Reliable secondary sources describe them as supporting climate change denial. Do you have a reliable source that says otherwise? Dmcq (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't quite know what to say to that. Perhaps deniers find some support in the reports, I would expect them to think they do. They would like to think the science is on their side. Poodleboy (talk) 10:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

How about something like "I understand that readers aren't interested in what editors think, only what is in reliable sources. Unfortunately I couldn't see how to avoid putting in my own thoughts here. Thanks for the explanation"? Dmcq (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)