Skip Navigation

Climate Change

Climate Change
August 18, 2017
New York Times, Draft Gov’t Climate Report Mislead
Climate Change Weekly #259
Energy
August 18, 2017
Fossil-Fuel Divestment Could Cost Public Pensions Big Bucks, Study Finds
A new study shows fossil fuel divestment is costly to investors.
Climate Change
August 17, 2017
Will Al Gore Demand a Recount Now That 'An Inconvenient Sequel' Has Flopped?
More than 10 years ago, Americans forked over $50 million to listen to the former vice president claim to be a scientist. Since then, most of his predictions have been dead-wrong.
More News
Climate Change
August 16, 2017
Climate Science Isn’t Settled, Energy Secretary Perry Testifies
At a hearing before the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Energy Secretary Rick Perry testified climate is changing but human carbon dioxide emissions are not the main cause.
Environment
August 14, 2017
Tesla Continues to Use Government to Rob the Poor to Pay the Rich
Climate Change Weekly #258
Environment
August 10, 2017
Rahm Emanuel Replays Scene from “Yes, Prime Minister” while Chicago Burns
In his well-received speech on Wednesday at a rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, President Donald Trump once again commented on social, economic, and political crises taking place in Chicago, asking “What’s wrong with Chicago?”
 

The Issue

The debate over global warming is the most consequential public policy debate taking place today in the United States and around the world. The stakes are enormous.

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.

Featured Subtopics

Flourishing corn crop
The evidence is overwhelming that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have will continue to help plants thrive, leading to greater biodiversity, shrinking deserts, expanded habitat for wildlife, and more food for a growing human population.
Woman with questioning look
The claim of “scientific consensus” on the causes and consequences of climate change is without merit. There is no survey or study showing “consensus” on any of the most important scientific issues in the climate change debate.
Chart showing upward economic growth
Economics can show committed environmentalists how they can better achieve their goals by recognizing fundamental economic principles such as the need to make trade-offs, to measure costs and benefits, and to take into account such economic concepts as discount rates and marginal costs.
Kids studying science in a lab
Overwhelming scientific evidence suggests the greenhouse gas-induced global climate signal is so small as to be embedded within the background variability of the natural climate system and is not dangerous. At the same time, global temperature change is occurring, as it always naturally does.

Additional Subtopics

  • Adaptation
  • Alarmism
  • Carbon Sequestrian
  • Climate Change Regulation
  • Climate Models
  • Human Effects
  • IPCC
  • Media Bias
  • NIPCC
  • Private Initiatives
  • Realism
  • Temperatures

Videos

Title: Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming FAQ: Is the science in the book peer-reviewed?
Description: Surveys show a large percentage of teachers are skeptical that human activity is causing a climate crisis, but they have access to a one-sided alarmist view of the subject that dominates text books for public and private schools. The Heartland Institute sent copies of “Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming” to more than 300,000 K-12 and college-level teachers all across America to ensure they have a resource to teach the controversy about this subject, and have in hand some of the scientific arguments that counter climate alarmism. As Heartland’s Tim Benson explains in this video, the science in the book comes from the peer-reviewed scientific literature, and is but one chapter in a large, upcoming volume of peer-reviewed data and analysis in the Climate Change Reconsidered series from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. See a free PDF copy of the book at this link: https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/why-scientists-disagree-about-global-warming

Climate Change Experts Team

The Heartland Institute's experts on climate change/global warming re available for legislative testimony, speaking engagements, and media interviews.

Staff & Fellows Policy Experts