nwtk2007 wrote:
Describe how its trash. Lol! You have no clue!
What part of,
Media Bias Fact check wrote:
Overall, we rate the Heartland Institute Right Biased and Questionable based on promotion of anti-science propaganda, lack of t***sparency with funding, and more than 5 failed fact checks by IFCN fact checkers.
Source: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/heartland-institute/
Wikipedia wrote:
2012 documents incident
On February 14, 2012, the g****l w*****g blog DeSmogBlog published more than one hundred pages of Heartland documents said to be from the Institute. Heartland acknowledged that some internal documents had been stolen,[125] but said that one, the "Climate Strategy memo", was forged to discredit Heartland.[128][129][130]
The documents were initially anonymously sourced, but later found to have been obtained by climate scientist Peter Gleick.[130][131] The documents included a fundraising plan, board of directors meeting minutes, and the organization's 2012 budget.[132][133] The documents were analyzed by major media, including The New York Times, The Guardian, United Press International and the Associated Press. Donors to the Institute included the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, Microsoft, General Motors, Comcast, Reynolds American, Philip Morris, Amgen, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, P****r and Eli Lilly, liquor companies, and an anonymous donor who had given $13 million over the past five years.
The documents contained details of payments to support climate skeptics and their programs, namely the founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), physicist Fred Singer ($5,000 plus expenses per month), geologist Robert M. Carter ($1,667 per month) and $90,000 to blogger and former meteorologist Anthony Watts. The documents also revealed the Institute's plan to develop curriculum materials to be provided to teachers in the United States to promote climate skepticism, plans confirmed by the Associated Press.[115][125][134][135][136][137] The documents also disclosed Heartland's $612,000 plan to support Wisconsin Act 10 and to influence the Wisconsin's recall e******ns called "Operation Angry Badger."[125][138] Carter and Watts confirmed receiving payments.[135]
Several environmental organizations called on General Motors and Microsoft to sever their ties with Heartland. Climate scientists called on Heartland to "recognise how its attacks on science and scientists have poisoned the debate about c*****e c****e policy."[28]
Gleick described his actions in obtaining the documents as "a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics" and said that he "deeply regret[ted his] own actions in this case". He stated that "My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts—often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated—to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of t***sparency of the organizations involved."[139] On February 24 he wrote to the board of the Pacific Institute requesting a "temporary short-term leave of absence" from the Institute.[140][141] The Board of Directors stated it was "deeply concerned regarding recent events" involving Gleick and the Heartland documents, and appointed a new Acting Executive Director on February 27.[142] Gleick was later reinstated to the Pacific Institute after an investigation found Gleick did not forge any documents, and he apologized for using deception to get the documents.
2012 documents incident br On February 14, 2012, t... (
show quote)
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute#2012_documents_incident
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/09/09/heartland-institute-nipcc-fail-the-credibility-test/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/15/leak-exposes-heartland-institute-climate
https://sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heartland_Institute
https://homelesscrisisinsfcompanies.tech.blog/2019/03/19/assessing-the-heartland-institute-and-its-credibility/
http://climatechangereconsidered.org/climatesciencewatch-com-heartland-institute-and-its-nipcc-report-fail-the-credibility-test-september-9-2013/
In the interest of fairness I was going to include the following two links but they fail to open.
https://www.heartland.org/about-us/reply-to-critics/index.html
https://www.heartland.org/about-us/what-theyre-saying/index.html
It would seem that Heartland Institute ISN'T trustworthy nor would I think it's faculty, of which Peter Ferrara, the Author of the Piece OP has presented published in Forbes' Opinion section, is one such faculty member.
Bonus information, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Ferrara, do you not understand?
You ARE aware that Peter Ferrara was the author of that opinion piece, that he works at and contributes to the works of Heartland Institute, that he shares their ideologies, biases and lack of credibility, right? Tnat is what makes that piece trash.