Why is the Heartland Institute paying skeptical scientists to speak at a 'conference'?

Question

At most scientific conferences, scientists are not paid to speak. It's an honor just to be invited to give a talk, and they're lucky to get some travel expenses paid or the conference fee waived.

The Heartland Institute (right-wing "think tank" with ties to the tobacco and oil industries) is inviting scientists to a 'conference' called "The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change".

"The purpose of the conference is to generate international media attention to the fact that many scientists believe forecasts of rapid warming and catastrophic events are not supported by sound science, and that expensive campaigns to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are not necessary or cost-effective."

The purpose of conferences is usually to discuss ideas and data in order to advance scientific understanding, not to attract PR. And the Heartland Institute is paying skeptical scientists $1000 to speak at the 'conference'.

What do you think are the motivations behind this 'conference'?

Answer 1

Not everyone is lucky enough to get a quarter million dollars from the Heinz Endowment.

Answer 2

Renown scientist get paid to speak publicly all the time.  You are correct in saying that some scientist will give talks for free but those are usually the ones trying to get a career started.  Who is speaking at this conference, are they very renown scientists or just a bunch of no names.  I don't see why it bothers you that they are getting paid, who cares.  That's the way of the world you get paid for your work and also paid for presenting your information.  When I go to conferences to give talks I don't get paid but my travel expenses do get paid, so should I pay for my travels myself to give these presentations??  I don't think so, conferences aren't free, you have to pay just to attend the conference, so whoever is holding the conference can accommodate their guest.  As far as the motivations only god knows.  It's the same with right wing and left wing politicians, you never really know what there motivations are.  If they firmly believe that forecasts of rapid warming and catastrophic events are not supported by sound science, and that expensive campaigns to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are not necessary or cost-effective." by all means they should draw attention to it just as AGW has so much attention.  I mean alls fair in science and debates.  If AGW is real then obviously you shouldn't have anything to worry about.

Answer 3

If some leftists professor doesn't get paid, which is highly questionable, for speaking, he is still getting paid forpushing his leftist views.  He gets paid no matter what he does.  Too often there is not any restrictions on tenured professors and they sometimes don't even teach.  They are too busy trying to make a name for themselves.  Finding something more unusual and catastrophic than the next is how you make a name for yourself.  It is scientist attempting to make a name for themselves or gain funding, millions of dollars (not the measly $1,000 you mentioned) that drives gloom and doom pseudo science.

Answer 4

Dana, you need to publish more.

I haven't published in almost 5 years, but when I first introduced a new paper (I dealt principally with neurophysiology and energy dynamics in animal populations, but also played around with human ecology (a branch of anthropological biology)), I expected an honorarium for speaking at conferences that weren't hosted by a scientific society to which I belonged.

   Basically, if I'm invited, I expect an honorarium ($500, but then, it was 5 years ago, and these guys are physicists) and my food and lodging gratis.

  While I'd be plenty suspicious of the Heartland Institute, this isn't a legit way to go about questioning their credibility.

Answer 5

If you don't think scientists are routinely given honorarium for speaking, I feel so sorry for you. Ignorance is bliss though...

I'm sure the propagandists at realclimate know this very well.

Answer 6

Dana,

I suggest that you remove your Rose-colored glasses and actually read the Real Climate article that you linked here.  We are talking "SPIN".  

BTW, $1000 for a speaker is nothing....and such honorariums are common-place.

AND....IF "The purpose of conferences is usually to discuss ideas and data........NOT to attract PR"........ then tell me what accounted for thousands.....yes THOUSANDS of the media 'covering' the Bali conference!!??

Tell me that Gore's power-point presentation.....'Inconvenient Truth' was not intended to attract media attention.

The RealClimate goobers are pissed off because the AGW skeptics are using the same marketing tactics!!........PERIOD!

Answer 7

If this isn't an example of the pot calling the kettle black, then I don't know what is.  

So speakers, who do support AGW, they don't get stipends or expense checks for their time when they give lectures at conferences and colleges?  

AGW isn't a "big business" now?  Billions of dollars being made by AGW companies and the like.

Dana,

your company pays you to do the work you do correct?  what do you think the motovations behind it are?

Answer 8

Maybe because they know that scientists are often afraid right now of speaking out against global warming.  He now has a big target on his back and you have just highlighted one of the reasons.  Most people who visit universities to speak at conferences get these honorariums.  I work at UCLA and we give them out to many conference attendees and speakers for their trouble.

Answer 9

I can't believe that you really believe Scientists don't get paid when they give speaches. You are living under a wrong assumption if you truly think that they don't get paid.

Edit: If these people aren't just going to the conference, but are expected to speak at them then yes I would expect them to get paid to do so.

It's the same for writing confrences, the Published Authors and Publishers that go to speak at these confrences get paid to do so.

This is not spin, but the facts of life.

Answer 10

well at least the Heartland Institute cant get a bad reputation from it. they already had a bad reputation from the tobacco debate.

Answer 11

Maybe they want to attract as many scientists as possible to counter the myth that there is only a few scientists who do not support the view of AGW.  

Besides, are you saying that scientists are willing to ruin their reputations for $1000?  If the flat earth society were to offer $1000 or $10000 how many takers will there be? Non.  No one would want to lose their reputation.  But according to you, non believers of AGW are akin to flat earth believers.

I have questioned many people (privately) on global warming.  The overwhelming majority do not have a clue on the subject.  In the end they always say if everybody says it is true, then it must be true.  The first step in convincing people that AGW is not true, is to dispel the myth of consensus.  That is what this conference is all about.  And to that I say, Good for them!

Answer 12

Dana, you're suggesting that because the other side has a counter argument, that that makes them wrong before they even say anything?

Because they have ties to Right Wing thinking, Big Oil and Tobacco that automatically disqualifies them?

Last time I checked, this was still the Good Ol' US of A and people were entitled to freedom of speech.

Objectivity, please tell me you haven't lost that from your MS.

It's not okay for a skeptical scientist to take $1000 to speak the the conference but it's okay for Al Gore to take money?

I don't get it Dana.

Answer 13

EVERY reputable scientist knows that global warming is a HOAX. Nobody has to pay scientists to say so. The only people who still believe in this cruel hoax are the nut cases being released from our mental hospital, politicians (most likely a far out liberal) who use it to revive their washed up careers, or greedy corporations who use it to make a quick profit.

Answer 14

darn, i didn't get an invite.

could i lie for $1,000?

probably not on this issue.

but i could think about it.

maybe if i was living closer to the edge i might consider it.

maybe if what i did for a living, then it'd be a Fred Thompson (that's a no brainer).

or more specifically, a steven milloy.  (wonder if he's speaking? or does he make too much with his other nefarious activities.)

Answer 15

When people are advised not to discuss AGW because it may hurt their career, or than noted politicians may try to soil their reputations, or their integrity may be publicly questioned...

It is not an example in science, but it is worth pondering: Fatty Arbuckle was bigger than Chaplin until he was dragged in the courts on a bogus charge. He had done nothing, but his career met a sudden death.

Answer 16

Propaganda.  Isn't it obvious?

Answer 17

I think more scientist get paid to speak then you know.