|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Feb 14, 2012, 10:44 PM
Post #1 of 14
(853 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
Whistleblower reveals the rotten heart of the Heartland Institute
Report this Post
|
Can't Post
|
|
Not that there's any real surprises, but it's nice to see confirmation.
In reply to: An anonymous donor calling him (or her)self “Heartland Insider” has released the Heartland Institute’s budget, fundraising plan, its Climate Strategy for 2012 and sundry other documents (all attached) that prove all of the worst allegations that have been levelled against the organization.
In reply to: The documents give a clear picture of Heartland money flows, showing exact amounts being paid to Heartland employees, and more importantly, the scientists involved in the ongoing NIPCC effort to disrupt the forthcoming IPCC AR5. Heartland’s “climate strategy” also includes a new anti-science climate education program designed to convince teachers that the science of climate change is both “controversial and uncertain”, two points said to be “effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science”. And Heartland plans to target “more neutral” commentators who are judged to be unsympathetic to “alarmists”, such as Andy Revkin and Judith Curry, and try to “keep opposing voices out” of Forbes magazine (now running Peter Gleick’s commentary regularly).
My bold - that's a word-for-word quote from a Heartland policy document, by the way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Feb 14, 2012, 11:11 PM
Post #3 of 14
(844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
Oops - yes, sorry. Short version: their original role was to spread FUD (fear, uncertainty and dismay) about the link between smoking and cancer on behalf of the tobacco industry. Once that became a lost cause, they moved on to doing the same with global warming, funded by the oil industry.
|
|
|
|
|
ubu
Feb 15, 2012, 4:02 AM
Post #4 of 14
(829 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2008
Posts: 1475
|
In reply to: And Heartland plans to target “more neutral” commentators who are judged to be unsympathetic to “alarmists”, such as Andy Revkin and Judith Curry...
That would explain Curry's rather sudden shift from "neutral" to antagonistic to climate science. I wonder if "target" means "throw money at"...
|
|
|
|
|
squierbypetzl
Moderator
Feb 15, 2012, 4:52 PM
Post #6 of 14
(778 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2005
Posts: 3428
|
It's no coincidence, they've got the same sponsors after all.
|
|
|
|
|
ubu
Feb 15, 2012, 6:07 PM
Post #7 of 14
(768 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2008
Posts: 1475
|
Heartland now claims that some of the documents are fake. Anyone buying that?
Oh, and I love this bit:
In reply to: Those persons who posted these documents and wrote about them before we had a chance to comment on their authenticity should be ashamed of their deeds, and their bad behavior should be taken into account when judging their credibility now and in the future.
I'm sure Heartland felt the same way when the HADCRU emails were stolen...
|
|
|
|
|
scrapedape
Feb 17, 2012, 1:17 PM
Post #8 of 14
(733 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 23, 2004
Posts: 2389
|
ubu wrote: Heartland now claims that some of the documents are fake. Anyone buying that? Oh, and I love this bit: In reply to: Those persons who posted these documents and wrote about them before we had a chance to comment on their authenticity should be ashamed of their deeds, and their bad behavior should be taken into account when judging their credibility now and in the future. I'm sure Heartland felt the same way when the HADCRU emails were stolen...
To be fair, they claim that one is a complete forgery and they have not verified the others line by line.
In the case of the "strategy memo," which contains some of the most outrageous statements, it seems that there is a pretty strong case that it is not legit:
http://www.theatlantic.com/...s-one-a-fake/253165/
http://www.theatlantic.com/...y-the-minute/253276/
|
|
|
|
|
ubu
Feb 17, 2012, 3:46 PM
Post #9 of 14
(719 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2008
Posts: 1475
|
scrapedape wrote: ubu wrote: Heartland now claims that some of the documents are fake. Anyone buying that? Oh, and I love this bit: In reply to: Those persons who posted these documents and wrote about them before we had a chance to comment on their authenticity should be ashamed of their deeds, and their bad behavior should be taken into account when judging their credibility now and in the future. I'm sure Heartland felt the same way when the HADCRU emails were stolen... To be fair, they claim that one is a complete forgery and they have not verified the others line by line. In the case of the "strategy memo," which contains some of the most outrageous statements, it seems that there is a pretty strong case that it is not legit: http://www.theatlantic.com/...s-one-a-fake/253165/ http://www.theatlantic.com/...y-the-minute/253276/
Yup, it will be interesting to see how this plays out. Regardless of the validity of the strategy memo, I still find it amusing how shocked they act about the whole business, given how quickly they jumped at the chance to paint the stolen CRU emails as a smoking gun discrediting the entirety of AGW research.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ubu
Feb 22, 2012, 6:16 AM
Post #11 of 14
(666 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2008
Posts: 1475
|
It seems entirely possible that Gleick forged the strategy document himself, and there is no question that he is in for a world of hurt going forward. The rest of the leak is still very damaging, both to Heartland and the AGW denialists who have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar after repeatedly claiming they were not funded in this manner.
Unfortunately, Gleik is likely to become the story the media will focus on, and not the content of the documents he snookered out of Heartland.
|
|
|
|
|
david_smithrock
Feb 24, 2012, 10:06 AM
Post #12 of 14
(588 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 12, 2006
Posts: 361
|
Everyone likes to see confirmation of their beliefs about their opponents. That's why Peter Gleick did what he did. Just another example of someone doing something dishonest in an attempt to further what they see as a good cause.
It's also funny (in a pathetic kind of way) to learn that Gleick was once the chairman of the American Geophysical Union's Task Force on Scientific Ethics. It might be a while before he gets his job back there.
This is damaging for the National Center for Science Education (where Gleick was a new member of their BOD: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/...amp;client=firefox-a, the AGU, and the climate change movement in general.
The Discovery Institute, the Heartland Institute, etc. are advertising this ethics debacle that has been uncovered. In other words, don't expect to hear much more about it at work or the blogs. Especially when they find out who wrote the memo (Gleick perhaps?) with the "effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science" line. Pathetic.
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Feb 24, 2012, 2:46 PM
Post #13 of 14
(545 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
As this analysis shows, even if it's a fake, it's an accurate fake which says nothing that isn't in other (acknowledged genuine) documents.
As for the breaking-the-law angle, it's honestly amusing to see the group that led the charge to make maximum damage out of Climategate by dishonest quote-mining of stolen documents, is suddenly all hurt and confused and litigous when their own (genuinely damaging) internal documents are leaked.
|
|
|
|
|
david_smithrock
Feb 24, 2012, 5:50 PM
Post #14 of 14
(529 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 12, 2006
Posts: 361
|
The webpage you linked to would only be convincing to someone who wants to believe it. The fact that Gleick's associates are distancing themselves from him, and that he has resigned from positions of authority over this is more telling.
Your link shows that Heartland is concerned about gaining money from sponsors, and wants input in the teaching about global warming. No big secret there. This is a far cry from saying they want to dissuade the teaching of science, as the likely fraudulent memo suggests. This language in the memo is laughable, and was designed to be accepted by those wanting confirmation that heartland is devious and evil.
Unfortunately, it backfired this time. But many will still defend people like Gleick I'm sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
