“What you have done is totally unethical!!”

Two of the leading climate sceptic organisations are in real trouble over misrepresenting the views of climate scientists.
Back in September last year, Dennis Avery from the right-wing Hudson Institute, wrote an article claiming that 500 scientists backed the theory that “most of the recent global warming has been caused by a long, moderate, natural cycle rather than by the burning of fossil fuels;” The article was also published by another sceptic right-wing think tank, the Heartland Institute, where Avery is a “Senior Fellow”.
Earlier this month, Kevin Grandia, from the climate change blog, DeSmogBlog emailed 122 of the scientists, calling their attention to the list. In less than 24 hours, three dozen scientists had responded in outrage, denying that their research supports Avery’s conclusions and demanding that their names be removed. Many expressed horror and outrage at being on the list.
For example: Dr. David Sugden. Professor of Geography, University of Edinburgh: “I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last 20 years arguing the opposite.”
Dr. Gregory Cutter, Professor, Department of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Old Dominion University: I have NO doubts ..the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there.”
Dr. Svante Bjorck, Geo Biosphere Science Centre, Lund University: “Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!!”
Every day more and more scientists are demanding that their names be removed from the list of so called “co-authors” of the Avery article. But Joseph Bast, the president of The Heartland Institute, argues: “They have no right — legally or ethically — to demand that their names be removed from a bibliography composed by researchers with whom they disagree”
This is so disingenuous that it is unbelievable. The Heartland and Hudson Institutes have no right – legally or ethically – to misrepresent the views of scientists to further their political aims to undermine the science of climate change. But that is what they are doing.