For those of us looking for actual science, there’s so much spin in the world of climate change today it makes me dizzy.

Let’s start with the big news buzzing around the Web during the last few days, namely the release of improperly obtained documents about the Heartland Institute, an industry supported organization that promotes climate change skepticism.

In the parlance of climate activists, the documents “expose the heart of the climate denial machine,” including its current plans, many of its funders, and reliance on support from Koch Industries, Altria (parent company of Philip Morris) RJR Tobacco and more.

On Wednesday the institute issued its reply to the release, saying a controversial confidential memo included among the leaks was fraudulent. Of the person who impersonated the identity of a Heartland board member and obtained the documents, the institute “vows to find this person and see him or her put in prison for these crimes.” (Would that the organization had a similar attitude toward the Climategate leaks).

Some have taken to calling the imbroglio “Heartlandgate.” The documents do provide revealing insight into what I think most of us already pretty much knew: the institute is keen to advance an anti-science agenda with respect to climate change and has financial backing from like-minded interests. It also reflects negatively on prominent spokesmen for skepticism, including Fred Singer, who purportedly received $5,000 a month from the organization for his efforts. During a recent visit to Houston Singer disavowed receiving funding from industry for his efforts to disseminate skepticism.

The bottom line is that, when it comes to science, there’s little enough of it at the Heartland Institute.

One might also say something similar, although not nearly as harshly, of a new Environment Texas report released this morning titled In the Path of the Storm. It concerns global warming, extreme weather, and the impacts of weather-related disasters in the United States.

The problem with this report is that it conflates rising temperatures, which is true, temperatures have risen measurably in the last 100 years, with a wide range of natural disasters experienced by the United States in 2011.

The report links the state of Texas’ exceptional 2011 drought with climate change, and holds this out as an example of an increasing number of extreme weather events due to climate change.

Here’s the rub: The Texas state climatologist, atmospheric scientist John Nielsen-Gammon, had this to say about the 2011 drought and climate change:

It appears that global warming, if it has affected mean precipitation, has had a minor impact compared to other influences, and even the sign of its effect on precipitation is unknown. Until we learn more, it is appropriate to assume that the direct impact of global warming on Texas precipitation has been negligible, and that the future precipitation trend with or without global warming is unknown.

In other words, it’s likely the 2011 drought was not linked to climate change, although John does note that 1 degree or so of the abnormal heat from last year is attributable to a warming world.

The Environment Texas report also holds out Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee as examples of an increasing trend of extreme weather in a warming world.

These are somewhat ironic choices — a Category 1 hurricane at landfall and a tropical storm — to make the report’s point that in a climate change influenced world “hurricanes are expected to become more intense and bring greater

amounts of rainfall.”

These were not atypical tropical systems in any way, and it’s worthwhile to note that the United States is currently in the midst of the longest streak ever recorded without an intense hurricane landfall.

I will give Environment Texas credit for using scientific sources to try and prove its case. But please, let’s be honest about the extreme weather events of 2011, many of which were not attributable to climate change.

More science, less spin, please.