Naomi Seibt

Environmental & Science Education

STEM

Climate Change

Global Warming

Sustainability

Edward Hessler

I don't pay attention to the Heartland Institute but the following news caught my attention. 

First, though, in the event you need to be reminded, the stance of the Heartland Institute on climate change can be summarized in one word, denial. Perhaps I should let them speak for themselves, so a more complete statement is found in this statement from their webpage.

"According to some scientists, stabilizing the climate would require reducing carbon dioxide emissions 80 percent or even more by the middle of the century. Rationing access to energy and forcing a transition to alternatives to fossil fuels would reduce the quality of life of billions of people around the world, squander one of America’s greatest comparative advantages among the world’s nations, and cause the premature death of millions of people.

"Most scientists do not believe human greenhouse gas emissions are a proven threat to the environment or to human well-being, despite a barrage of propaganda insisting otherwise coming from the environmental movement and echoed by its sycophants in the mainstream media. Surveys and article-counting exercises alleged to show a “consensus” invariably ask the wrong questions (e.g., is climate change happening, rather than whether a human impact is likely to be dangerous) or are methodologically flawed. More reliable research shows the science community is deeply divided and unsure about the causes and consequences of climate change."

Our Stance

"The Heartland Institute has participated in the global debate over climate policy since 1993, when it published an influential book titled Eco-Sanity: A Common-Sense Guide to Environmentalism. Our position has always been that if human emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases pose a threat to the natural world and human health, then actions to avoid the threat would be necessary. But if the best-available research shows there is little danger or that there is nothing we can do to prevent climate change, then we should oppose legislation adopted in the name of 'stopping' global warming."

There has been considerable reporting on a recent Heartland hire, a teen-age climate skeptic from Germany named Naomi Seibt (19 yo) who will serve as the face of a campaign questioning/challenging human causation of global warming. 

Because Seibt is young, she has been described as the "anti--Greta" (Thunberg). You may learn more about her as well as her views here. By the way, Seibt was hired; Thunberg is still a free agent speaking only for herself and seems often, as much as this is posssble, to deflect attention from herself. She has a larger aim.

This article from the Washington Examiner, a conservative news website, includes two videos and notes that "Seibt is simply not a serious person. .... Groups such as Heartland are free to question the science of climate change. But if they want to avoid looking like massive hypocrites, let alone convince anyone, they ought to present arguments and evidence , not hide behind teenage YouTube trolls looking for five minutes in the spotlight."