FOLLOWUP: Heartland Institute's billboards are costing them donors

By Phil Plait | May 8, 2012 5:58 am

I wrote a few days ago about the disgusting billboards put up by the far-right Heartland Institute, a climate-change denial group that apparently has no lower bounds to what they’ll do. The billboards, which went up in Chicago, likened climate scientists (and anyone who knows global warming is real) to mass murderers and madmen.

It was repulsive and hateful. After an uproar — and in less than a day — Heartland took down the billboards, but didn’t apologize for them. Instead they claimed it was an "experiment", and declared victory in getting attention. This would be why I use the words repulsive and disgusting.

But the damage was done — this tactic has backfired on Heartland. Even before the billboards went up they lost sponsorship from the Diageo liquor company, which makes such brands as Smirnoff and Guiness. In March, General Motors dropped Heartland as well. Even people who support climate change denialism are worried that their own reputations "[have] been harmed".

And now, after a few bloggers wrote to State farm, the insurance company has announced they too will withdraw funding from Heartland Institute. State Farm specifically cites the billboards as the reason in their announcement.

I suspect that Scott Mandia’s open letter to them was the major driver for this. For my part, I tweeted about this on Sunday:

The link goes to a copy of Mandia’s letter. On Monday evening, State Farm tweeted they were severing ties with Heartland.

Besides removing ties from a group with such awful tactics, it’s in State Farm’s best interest anyway. Global warming is having and will continue to have a profound impact, including droughts, floods, rising sea levels, and much more. Insurance companies will need to deal with this, and they need to be thinking about this now.

I want to publicly thank State Farm for doing the right thing here. I already did so on Twitter as well.

Never forget the power we have as consumers to change the world. It worked when it came to American Arlines and antivaxxers, and it’s working here.

[UPDATE: Bernews is reporting the Association of Bermuda Insurers and Reinsurers will discontinue funding Heartland as well; they gave $125,000 in 2010/11.]

And we’re not done. Heartland still has quite a few corporate sponsors. Brad Johnson has created a list of them on Pinterest, how much they’ve given, and which ones have dropped Heartland due to its shenanigans. Heartland is hemorrhaging donors, but there’s still a long way to go.


Related Posts:

The Heartland Institute sinks to a new low
Breaking news: a look behind the curtain of the Heartland Institute’s climate change spin
Hip, hip, hypocrisy!
A case study of the tactics of climate change denial, in which I am the target
NASA talks global warming
The world is getting warmer
Our ice is disappearing
Climate change: the evidence

Comments (52)

  1. Ronaldo

    Interestingly, insurance companies *are* dealing with this. Climate change and global warming are part of reinsurance catastrophe modeling. When they try to predict upcoming hurricane frequency, flooding, and other weather related events. Obviously macro-level climate data can’t get you the right answer on questions like “How many hurricanes will hit the Gulf Coast in 2017?” but a good model makes good assumptions, and at their core, insurance companies are assuming that the world will be a little bit warmer in 5 years.

    Interesting that companies whose profitability depends on scientifically accurate risk forecasting are buying into a silly conspiracy ;-)

  2. Instead they claimed it was an “experiment”, and declared victory in getting attention.

    One could expose his or her genitals on a subway, then, when arrested for indecent exposure, claim that it was all an experiment in getting attention. Either way it shows you the caliber of minds with which we’re working here.

    And maybe rather than trying to shame Heartland’s sponsors into severing ties with the group, it may be a better tactic to send them link to these ads and their inane justifications for them, then ask whether the sponsors knew that this is how their money is being used.

    That way, you could see where they really stand on the issue, not just how they respond to PR pressure no matter how well justified this pressure may be.

  3. Chris

    On the bright side their billboard has helped people see just how crazy and desperate the deniers are. Like the boyfriend who leaves hundreds of messages asking “Will you please take me back” the more reasonable members of the public who were on the edge about climate change because they weren’t so scientifically literate will see that the deniers don’t have a leg to stand on.

  4. In all of this I hadn’t considered insurance companies. I think the reason reality seems to lose a lot is because nobody with any real clout cares OR they actually benefit from people being ignorant of the truth.

  5. Meme Mine

    A Compromise:
    -Former believers now agree that climate change is real.
    &
    -Believers now agree that climate change is not a crisis.
    Fair enough?
    Meanwhile billions of children were condemned to the greenhouse gas ovens as the entire world of SCIENCE and progressivism and journalism had allowed bank-funded and corporate-run “CARBON TRADING STOCK MARKETS” to trump 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue and 3rd world education for just over 26 years of insane attempts at climate CONTROL.
    Climate change wasn’t science; it was a liberal virtue that threatened the voter’s children with a death by CO2. Not a good way to get votes anymore.

  6. Heartland is hemorrhaging donors, but there’s still a long way to go.

    Such as hemorrhaging members, followers, and their entire existence! Small steps I guess.

    I still can’t fathom how it is that a group such as this even exists. Not because they are skeptical of claims (with a mountain of evidence), but that it’s an entirelly politically motivated argument. Their motto seems like “Science be damned!” Reminds me of a Carl Sagan quote:

    We live in a society absolutely dependent on science and technology and yet have cleverly arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. That’s a clear prescription for disaster.

    – with Anne Kalosh (October 1994), “Bringing Science Down to Earth”, Hemispheres

    And this is a disaster of our own making, and these creetins seem proud of their acheivement…

  7. klem

    This billboard thing should cost them some donors. Its an idiotic move on their part. But they might pick up a few new donors as well.

    Its just like the climate alarmism supported by Discover magazine, it has cost them my subscription and perhaps a number of others, but at the same time they likely have picked up subscribers as well. And so it will be at Heartland.

  8. ND

    Meme Mine,

    I feel sorry for you. You live in such an insulated, impenetrable bubble of rhetoric.

    or

    you’re a troll.

  9. Aadam Aziz Ansari

    Obvious troll is obvious.

  10. Steve Metzler

    @Meme Mine (#4):

    Your repeated attempts to derail every AGW discussion on the BA’s site are getting to be very *yawn*. Yes, there are many other worthy causes on the planet that deserve to have public funds spent on them, fresh water security for the 3rd world being very important among them.

    But if we don’t take serious steps soon to solve the man-made greenhouse gasses problem, then all those other problems will pale in significance. This is the most pressing environmental problem of our time.

    And, BTW, I do agree with you that trading in carbon credits is probably not the best way to deal with the situation. My personal views on the effectiveness (or not) of carbon trading are well expressed here:

    The Story of Cap & Trade

    I think a much better solution is the one backed by James Hansen:

    James Hansen’s proposed ‘fee and dividend’

  11. Chris

    The MORE words which are typed in ALL CAPS the less INSANE I appear.

  12. IanR

    The cigarette companies were very much against the emotional appeal of pictures on their products; I wonder if they will respond in the same way about this?

  13. Uranium Willy

    Brad Johnson’s list includes MicroSoft I think this is a little unfair they have just given them software discounts that they provide to all non profit organisations, I’m not saying they shouldn’t stop doing that for the Heartland Institute, but its not like they are paying them to do their dirty work.

  14. erok81

    I think their choice for the Ted K. wasn’t the best one. Sure he isn’t a good person, but he was was quite smart. Although I guess they get the shock factor so maybe he was a good choice.

  15. turbomike

    Can someone post the corporate donor list from Brad Johnson/Pinterest? The hive overmind at my location blocks that site.

  16. AlanG

    General Motors, the kings of crony capitalism and government handouts, sponsored Heartland?!?! That is absolutely hilarious!

  17. Gary Ansorge

    This goes to show, wallet warfare works…but it’s the LAST battle we still have to win, before the war is done.

    That battle is for minds.

    Gary 7

  18. amphiox

    Sorry Meme Mine , but it IS a crisis. We just don’t know precisely how BAD a crisis it is, whether it is a “this is very serious and we’d better set up contingency plans right away” or a “300ccs Epi STAT!” to a “OMG! IT’S ALL OVER! WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!” type of crisis.

    We know it is somewhere in that spectrum. To say anything else would be to lie.

  19. @Larian LeQuella,

    Sadly, it’s worse than “People rely on science but don’t understand it.” There are a very vocal group of people who are actively against science while they rely on it. Yes, they just oppose it where it suits them/conflicts with other beliefs, but you can’t just slice out a chunk of science without affecting other pieces. For example, ditch evolution and you will eventually unravel biology which would impair the ability to produce medicines/treat diseases.

  20. Interestingly, insurance companies presumably have a lot to lose if they underestimate the risks of AGW, at least if they, directly or indirectly, insure against those risks.

  21. throwback1986

    Holy crap! My company is on the list. (Not surprising, in retrospect, given the right-wing nutjob that founded it)

  22. Randy A.

    It would have been fun if somebody in the reality based community had put up very similar billboards where Kaczynski was saying: “I believe in gravity, do you?”

  23. James Evans

    I think I remember Wile E. Coyote running “experiments” like this. They all seemed to blow up in his face, too.

    Keep up the good work, SuperGenius Institute.

  24. GeoWash

    “wallet warfare works” – especially if you can’t convince with evidence.

    “‘I believe in gravity'” – didn’t Einstein offer another explanation? (Obvious nut, I guess.)

    “hemorrhaging members” – sure, no doubt they will go the way of Limbaugh, off the air, forgotten.

    I’m still waiting for a ‘true believer’ to tell me what constitutes evidence of falsifiability. I know that you believe, but it’s not science unless you can also define the experimental evidence that would prove the opposite case. That’s how we do real science and not religion.

  25. shameus
  26. Messier Tidy Upper

    @4. Meme Mine :

    A Compromise:
    -Former believers now agree that climate change is real.
    &
    -Believers now agree that climate change is not a crisis.
    Fair enough?

    Try making that compromise with the shrinking Arctic sea ice, disappearing glaciers and ever hotter atmospher, Meme Mine. Good luck with that. ;-)

    I suppose its good to see a hint of concession from you at least.

    Meanwhile billions of children were condemned to the greenhouse gas ovens as the entire world of SCIENCE and progressivism and journalism had allowed bank-funded and corporate-run “CARBON TRADING STOCK MARKETS” to trump 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue and 3rd world education for just over 26 years of insane attempts at climate CONTROL.

    Your supporting evidence for this is ..???

    Actually, the poorest nations are those suffering from Human Induced Rapid Global Overheating (HIRGO) most, contributing to the problem least and heling them is not mutually contradictory with simultaneouslyacting to mitigate HIRGO.

    Climate change wasn’t science; it was a liberal virtue that threatened the voter’s children with a death by CO2. Not a good way to get votes anymore.

    Sigh. :roll:

    Your qualifications in science and basis for us to take you seriously on this are what exactly, Meme mine ..??

    Environmentalism has very rarely been electorally popular. Does that mean they wrong? Take a look at the scientific literature. Think about the fact that the climatologist’s preductions have been overly cautious and that HIRGO is actually happening faster than they predicted.

    Wait a few years. Or less.

    The evidence against the Climate Contrarians keeps growing pretty much every month, every year.

    At some point Climate contrarianism is simply going to beome untenable for virtually everyone. That day can’t come fast enough – and yet I wish it would never get here as well. :-(

  27. mikel

    I’m still waiting for a ‘true believer’ to tell me what constitutes evidence of falsifiability. I know that you believe, but it’s not science unless you can also define the experimental evidence that would prove the opposite case. That’s how we do real science and not religion.

    Here are a few things that would falsify or at least cast AGW into reasonable doubt territory. 1. A statistically significant multiyear cooling trend (No we have not been cooling since 1998). 2. The discovery of a completely new to science natural forcing that happens to mimic a greenhouse effect. All the known natural causes (incuding the sun) have been accounted for and cannot explain it. This mystery cause X would also have to share a greenhouse effect’s fingerprints, namely a simultaneously cooling stratosphere and greater warming in the polar regions than in the tropics. 3. The discovery of a, currently unknown, process that would suppress CO2’s greenhouse properties. Clouds are not up to the job. It’s important to remember that exhibit A for AGW is that basic Physics says that increasing CO2 should cause warming, and that warming was predicted years before it was observed. 4. The development of a new theory of climate that is as well supported empirically and equal in explanatory power to the current understanding of climate and that turns out to have equal or greater predictive power. AGW is a basic prediction of a model of climate that successfully explains historical changes in climate such as ice ages and that makes sense of our current climate.

    So, now what evidence would convince you that AGW deserves your provisional agreement.

  28. puppygod

    -Believers now agree that climate change is not a crisis.

    So, I take it that you live more than 5m above the shoreline, yes?

  29. Gus Snarp

    Wait, Guiness was donating to Heartland? I was supporting these liars? Sometimes boycotts are pointless, but if I had known this, I’d have stopped drinking Guiness. Lucky for me, now I don’t have to. Who else is giving them money? Is there donor list public?

  30. Steve Metzler

    @GeoWash (#25):

    I’m still waiting for a ‘true believer’ to tell me what constitutes evidence of falsifiability. I know that you believe, but it’s not science unless you can also define the experimental evidence that would prove the opposite case. That’s how we do real science and not religion.

    OK, I’ll bite. I’ve studied the science behind AGW about as much as a layperson could be expected to, pretty much ever since Climategate happened. Because before that I was pretty ambivalent towards AGW, so I wanted to understand what all the sudden fuss was about (though, as it turns out, the ‘sudden’ was only my own perception of things).

    So my conclusion from the subsequent remedial reading is that, if we keep dumping CO2 into the atmosphere at the current rate (or higher), we’ll most likely hit that infamous doubling point of 560ppm around 2050 (or before!). The current consensus among climatologists is that anywhere from about a 2C to 4.5C increase in global mean surface temperatures since pre-industrial times will have ensued as a result.

    Mind you, things could change:

    * We could cut back drastically on CO2 emissions
    * We could go into a historic insolation low for a period of decades
    * We could put so many more aerosols into the atmosphere that we create a quasi ‘nuclear winter’ (and there’s quite a negative forcing as a result of that solar dimming effect already. Temps would be higher if we cleaned up our act)
    * We could discover some incredible, guaranteed benign to the ecosphere, geo-engineering technology that every country would agree to use (don’t hold your breath waiting)

    But barring extremes like that, I’d say the AGW science would be falsified if at a CO2 concentration of ~560ppm, we don’t hit anywhere close to a >2C anomaly. Dog help us if we do.

    And, BTW, when someone like yourself equates science with religion, that’s a pretty good tell that you don’t know very much about the scientific method. Or, you do, but you’re being contrarian mainly because of your ideology. Or, you’re a particle physicist :-)

  31. Number 6

    Thank goodness Phil gave State Farm a dope slap…..It’s hard to believe an insurance company would be so backward in its thinking…..From what I can see, many insurance companies, especially global ones have a scientific frame of mind on the subject. In fact, the smart ones spend significant resources on studying how the world will change due to this issue and they hire people with scientific backgrounds to help them study it and to help them predict the future. …State Farm better wake up soon, or they’ll be left behind.

  32. Michael Suttkus, II

    I don’t know. Bravo for the companies dumping Hearland funding, but, why did it take this long? It isn’t like Heartland hasn’t been blatantly anti-reality for decades now. They’re cutting off support because Heartland did something stupid, not because they’ve had a change of heart or connected with reality. I’m too cynical to believe they’ll do anything but take this money they’re taking from Heartland and put it in some other denier’s pocket. The other anti-GW organizations are probably mass mailing fliers right now to fight over it.

    Is this the right thing or just a shift of wrong things?

  33. Uranium Willy

    “I’m still waiting for a ‘true believer’ to tell me what constitutes evidence of falsifiability.”
    climate science predicted that an increase in greenhouse would result in a cooling of the upper atmosphere and a warming of the lower, because greenhouse gases slowdown the rate of heat lose from the lower to the upper. This prediction came true.
    climate scientists predicted that the temperature at the poles would increase more than the equator because greenhouse gases hold onto heat longer and so the heat has more time to distribute more evenly, this prediction came true.
    climate science predicted that the extent of ice cover of the poles would vary more greatly from summer to winter, this is because in the summer warmer temperatures means the zero degree line recedes further, but in the winter with warmer temperatures you get more evaporation and so you get more snow, this prediction came true.
    climate science predicted that there would be a feedback relationship between temperatures and CO2 and if you looked for that in climate records you would find evidence of that, this prediction came true.
    If any of these predication did not come true then that would falsify the prediction.
    There are probable other examples I am unaware, but I am not going to assume that just because I am unaware of it, it doesn’t exist, that would be just incredible stupid and arrogant of me.
    And to just cut you short of your “but some scientist said this and this didn’t happen” argument, the speculation of a single or a small group of scientist, is not the same thing as what the science predicts.

  34. GeoWash

    mikel@29, your first and third points cannot be reconciled. If increasing CO2 necessitates rising temperature, then a simple lack of cooling (i.e. a flat T trend) fails to satisfy your interpretation. (I expect you now to argue for increased complexity. This is an historical trend previously used to extend the life of Newtonian physics.)

    Steve Metzler@32, you say a failure to increase T by 2 deg. C when CO2 concentrations reach ~560 ppm would convince you. That’s an increase of ~180 ppm above current levels. Are you basing your projection on a linear relationship? Does that mean if CO2 dropped to zero we’d see a decrease of 4 deg. C? BTW, what is the world’s temperature? Would the increase occur uniformly across the globe? (I expect you now to argue for increased complexity, etc.)

  35. Mickey Reno

    Heartland reacted to many people, many of whom came from their side of the debate, including Donna Laframboise, who was scheduled to speak at their conference, and cancelled when the billboard was installed. Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts also criticized Joe Bast in e-mails. WUWT ran a survey and 3/4 of the readers (including me) opined Heartland’s move to be a stupid blunder. It’s a non-scientific poll, but it says something, at least.

    Heartland is making some silly justifications, but in the end, along with you all, many people on their own side of the debate condemned their behavior and use of a “guilt by association” fallacy. This shamed them into pulling the billboard.

    So, have any alarmists condemned this similar behavior from your side (up since July 25th of last year)?:
    http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/07/25/277564/norway-terrorist-is-a-global-warming-denier/?mobile=nc

  36. Steve Metzler

    @GeoWash (#36):

    Steve Metzler@32, you say a failure to increase T by 2 deg. C when CO2 concentrations reach ~560 ppm would convince you. That’s an increase of ~180 ppm above current levels. Are you basing your projection on a linear relationship?

    I’m basing ‘my’ projection on what the primary literature concerning climate tells us is likely to happen if we keep emitting CO2 at current rates for an extended period. In fact, even if we were to begin cutting down on emissions right now, there would still be more warming ‘in the pipeline’. The system has a large amount of lag built into it.

    Does that mean if CO2 dropped to zero we’d see a decrease of 4 deg. C?

    As far as we know, it’s not possible for CO2 to drop to zero (do you have any understanding at all of the carbon cycle?). Even during glaciation periods, its equilibrium point is around 180ppm, as we can discern from 800,000+ years of ice core samples (and other paleoclimatology data). So your question is moot.

    BTW, what is the world’s temperature? Would the increase occur uniformly across the globe? (I expect you now to argue for increased complexity, etc.)

    We have to by necessity speak of average global temperature, because that is the only viable way we can measure change. But to answer your other question, no, we don’t see temperature increasing uniformly across the globe. In fact, it is increasing much more in the arctic regions, which is a huge worry as that’s where… a lot of ice is/was.

    It’s very late here. Gotta get some kip. That should give you time to do a bit of reading on the subject. I’d start with Spencer Weart’s “The Discovery of Global Warming – A History”.

  37. amphiox

    mikel@29, your first and third points cannot be reconciled.

    That’s irrelevant. They were given as INDEPENDENT examples of evidence against AGW. Each one, alone, if observed, is evidence against AGW. Obviously if (IF) one is observed, the other will not be, assuming they truly are irreconcilable, which they may not be, your uninformed opinion notwithstanding.

  38. amphiox

    To truly falsify AGW you will need evidence that invalidates the already observed temperature changes as measured over the last several centuries. You need something that shows that those recorded measured temperatures were actually all wrong and you will need as well a replacement set of measured temperatures demonstrating the opposite trend. You would also need evidence demonstrating a previously unknown natural forcing agent, at work in the last several centuries.

    The evidence that demonstrates AGW has already been collected. So to falsify AGW you need to overturn that already existing evidence.

  39. mikel

    mikel@29, your first and third points cannot be reconciled. If increasing CO2 necessitates rising temperature, then a simple lack of cooling (i.e. a flat T trend) fails to satisfy your interpretation

    OK fine. A statistically significant flat T trend (we haven’t that since 1998 either*) would be problematic for AGW. There is nothing about the science of AGW that predicts or suggests a simple linear rise in temperatures.

    (I expect you now to argue for increased complexity. This is an historical trend previously used to extend the life of Newtonian physics.)

    Huh?

    I’d like to address some of your remarks to Steve Metzler.

    Steve Metzler@32, you say a failure to increase T by 2 deg. C when CO2 concentrations reach ~560 ppm would convince you. That’s an increase of ~180 ppm above current levels. Are you basing your projection on a linear relationship?

    The relationship between CO2 levels and temperature is understood to be logarithmic. Each doubling of CO2 levels has about the same effect, about 3° C, give or take, per doubling.

    Does that mean if CO2 dropped to zero we’d see a decrease of 4 deg. C?

    It would cool a hell of a lot more than 4° C.

    Would the increase occur uniformly across the globe?

    No. As has been explained to you already polar regions would warm faster than tropical regions (this has been in fact observed, years after it was predicted).

    BTW, what is the world’s temperature?

    If you average out all the temps you get an average world temp of about 57 ° f. That is about 59° higher than Earth’s black body temperature. Do you also doubt the natural greenhouse effect?

    (I expect you now to argue for increased complexity, etc.)

    Once again I have no idea what you are talking about.

    Now about my question. What evidence would convince you to provisionally accept AGW?

    * For completion’s sake I should mention we also haven’t had a statistically significant warming trend since 1998.

  40. Uranium Willy

    (I expect you now to argue for increased complexity. This is an historical trend previously used to extend the life of Newtonian physics.)
    Huh?

    (I expect you now to argue for increased complexity, etc.)
    Once again I have no idea what you are talking about.

    I think he is trying to resorting to the perfection fallacy, if its (the predictions) not perfect then its useless. Its also a bit of a straw man argument, nobody is saying the sole determining factor on climate is CO2 and nobody is saying we have a perfect understanding of climate and every single factor contributing to it, maybe something will happen and increasing CO2 will stop behaving the way our science predicts and the way it has in the past, but there is no reason for us to assume so.
    As a side note Newtonian physics is still used today, general relativity just a modified version which take into account edge case, (extreme gravity, speed etc), its works good enough for NASA to send spacecraft to the planets.

  41. tim Rowledge

    A Compromise:
    -Former believers now agree that climate change is real.
    &
    -Believers now agree that climate change is not a crisis.

    Compromise, says Professor Trefusis, is stalling between two fools. Alternatively, consider that halfway between right and wrong is still bloody well wrong.

  42. How deplorable to link decent people to terrorists.

  43. Nigel Depledge

    Meme Mine (5) said:

    A Compromise:
    -Former believers now agree that climate change is real.
    &
    -Believers now agree that climate change is not a crisis.
    Fair enough?

    Er, no.

    Reality is what it is, irrespective of who does or does not accept it.

    Climate science is telling us what is, and what is most probably going to happen next. Deciding how to deal with it is where the debate should be happening.

    Meanwhile billions of children were condemned to the greenhouse gas ovens as the entire world of SCIENCE and progressivism and journalism had allowed bank-funded and corporate-run “CARBON TRADING STOCK MARKETS” to trump 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue and 3rd world education for just over 26 years of insane attempts at climate CONTROL.

    What utter nonsense.

    Carbon-trading schemes of various kinds are but one proposed solution to the problem of transitioning away from our carbon-based energy economy. As has been pointed out often enough, it is probably not a very good one.

    This does not change the fact that the transition is almost certainly necessary.

    Climate change wasn’t science; it was a liberal virtue that threatened the voter’s children with a death by CO2. Not a good way to get votes anymore.

    Wrong. Just wrong.

    AGW is a sound conclusion, based on decades of research. You might justify doing nothing about it by pretending to youself that it is merely a political ploy, but that does not change the fact that it is happening.

  44. Steve Metzler

    amphiox gave a much better account of how AGW might be falsified back there in #40 than I ever could. Hats off. And it is falsifiable as of today, rather than 40 years from now, when it would be too late to do anything to avert… dare I say it?… catastrophe.

  45. Robin Clune

    So, how do we find the contact information for these corporations? The bigger ones, like Microsoft, hide behind their size so you can’t figure out who should receive a letter or email.

  46. Tribeca Mike

    When you’ve seen one Exxon Mobil shill you’ve seen ‘em all.

  47. Terry Spence

    Being a longtime member, I sent a request for information to USAA on their support of Heartland Institute and got this reply back:

    “USAA had been a supporter of the Finance, Insurance and Real Estate Center for Heartland because it afforded us the opportunity for open dialogue and debate on important issues that have a direct impact on our business and our members. In light of recent personnel departures at Heartland, we decided to end our support for the organization. Thank you for your email and for the opportunity to respond.”

    USAA

    Contacting the supporters of this “Institute” does work.

  48. Laughing Penguin

    Also being a longtime member, I just the same response back from USAA.
    Good to see this is working.

  49. charles slavis

    Climate change has been going on forever…….we are just doing the current acceleration of it. Things change get over it…..adapt or don’t whatever…….I just saw a show where Hawking says God is unnecessary because there is no time in the black hole which began the big bang, and something can appear out of nothing…..However our particular universe is full of black holes all with no time within each of them and yet time exists all around each of the timeless black holes……..If God is everything eternally evolving, as I suggest then think of the multi verses as one all encompassing entity which I think of as God………Just saying……my opinion only……No judgement….no punishment ….just a chance for everybody to happen and maybe happen again….given forever. Why do I believe in something called God? Because I am. Something evolved into me and into Steven……I call that which allowed me to happen…God. And it is bigger than even Steven can imagine. And isn’t a quantum spark of energy appearing out of nothing merely saying we don’t know where it came from?

  50. charles slavis

    So far science has only determined that everything is bigger than we know, beyond our own perceptual universe. Science has explained a lot of what is, but very little of what might be.

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »