From the heartland, a group of Republicans have made an open call for a serious investigation of the leaked heartless Heartland Institute documents. In the press release (reproduced in full, absent specific contact information, here), they emphasize the need for conservatives and conservative institutions to engage in truthful discussion of climate science issues and a move away from anti-science syndrome
"as William F. Buckley once said, "Conservatism implies a certain submission to reality.""
Such heavy-handed posturing should not dissuade journalists and commentators from thoroughly covering the leaked documents and reporting on the efforts of Heartland and others to manufacture a scientific controversy about climate change where none exists.
Heartland's moral outrage about leaked documents this past week was glaringly absent following the 2009 release of hacked climate scientists' e-mails that was dubbed "climategate." In fact, it fully participated in a media campaign that misrepresented the e-mails and raised unfounded questions about scientists' integrity.
They lay out how Heartland has worked to foster false uncertainty over climate science in the American public and how this merits attention in the public to the same extent that "climategate" received (far) too much attention from Faux News to the front pages of the nation's newspapers.
Heartland's strategy, and its reliance on funding from individuals who have a vested interest in undermining climate science, must be brought to the public's attention to at least the same degree as the so-called "climategate" emails were. The opinions and knowledge of far too many Americans remain influenced by erroneous reporting about the content of those e-mails.The Heartland documents detail plans to prevent earnest scientific research and opinions other than their own from gaining public exposure. They even go so far as to gin up a science curriculum designed to "dissuade" public schoolteachers from teaching science--a shocking plan to undermine education and turn our public schools into mouthpieces for agenda-driven propaganda.
its climate operation has become a public relations servant of special interests--sowing confusion, misrepresenting science, and spreading distortions that pollute what should be a robust, fact-based debate about climate change.
Honestly, I agree with these Republicans: conservation is inherently conservative. Conserve one's options to the future -- whether it be in terms of fiscal resources (avoiding budget deficits) or physical resources (emphasize efficiency over extraction, to keep those resources around to help meet future requirements). As they put it as to Heartland's (and too many so-called conservatives') approach to climate science:
That's not conservative. As William F. Buckley once said, "Conservatism implies a certain submission to reality."Climate change is an opportunity for conservative organizations to actually be conservative, by acknowledging facts and laying on the table conservative policies for dealing with the climate issue.
As it comes to the heartless Heartland documents, these Republicans call on Heartland to prove their assertions about the documents and that, in the absence of such proof, journalists give serious attention to scrutinizing them with appropriate reporting.
If any of the released Heartland documents are not authentic, Heartland should be able and willing to provide solid proof. If, as the evidence seems to indicate, the documents are real, the media has an obligation to report on the plans they describe and their troubling implications for a democratic society.
As to why they wrote this press release, here is the explanation provided to me:
Our goal is simply to encourage an appropriate level of media attention to the tactics and plans of Heartland's climate operation in order to balance the scales a bit in light of the misinformation that is being spread about the so called "climategate" emails. Those who have heard that misinformation (and unfortunately continue to hear it from some outlets) need to hear about this as well in order to have a more complete understanding of the game that is being played.
For links to dozens of discussions of the heartless Heartland documents, see here.
Follow A. Siegel on Twitter: www.twitter.com/A_Siegel
Guardian February 17, 2012
The Heartland Institute, the libertarian thinktank whose project to undermine science lessons for schoolchildren was exposed this week, faces new scrutiny of its finances – including its donors and tax status.
The Guardian has learned of a whistleblower complaint to the Internal Revenue Service about Heartland's 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status...
[T]he complaint looked at the activities of Heartland and two other organisations that have been prominent in misinforming the public about climate change, the Science and Environmental Policy Project, run by Fred Singer, and the Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, run by Craig Idso. Both men were funded by Heartland, with Idso receiving $11,600 per month and Singer $5,500 a month, according to the 2012 budget.
Heartland is also funding contrarians in Canada and other countries, the documents show...
Others were demanding more disclosure from Heartland about its donors and its activities.
In a letter that was published on Friday and then subsequently removed, more than 30 leading health professionals and scientists from the US, Britain, Australia and New Zealand called on Heartland to come clean. "What motivates the Heartland Institute? As climate scientists and health professionals, we view the systematic manipulation and suppression of climate science for private benefit as confusing at best, and inhumane at worst," the letter said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/17/heartland-institute-fresh-scrutiny-tax
Do you support the Heartland Institute's threatening a 71-year-old Veteren with legal action for exercising his right to free speech?
http://www.berthoudrecorder.com/2012/02/19/heartland-institute-threatens-71-year-old-veteran/
George Monbiot
Shocking, fascinating, entirely unsurprising: the leaked documents, if authentic, confirm what we suspected but could not prove. The Heartland Institute, which has helped lead the war against climate science in the United States, is funded among others by tobacco firms, fossil fuel companies and one of the billionaire Koch brothers...
The institute has claimed that it is “a genuinely independent source of research and commentary"...
The climate change deniers it funds have made similar claims to independence. For example, last year Fred Singer told a French website, “of course I am not funded by the fossil fuel lobbies. It’s a completely absurd invention.” The documents suggest that the institute, funded among others by the coal company Murray Energy, the oil company Marathon and the former Exxon lobbyist Randy Randol, has been paying him $5000 a month.
Robert Carter has claimed that he “receives no research funding from special interest organisations”. But the documents suggest that Heartland pays him $1,667 a month...
It seems to be as clear an illustration as we have yet seen of the gulf between what such groups call themselves and what they are...
The battle for democracy is now a straight fight against the billionaires and corporations reshaping politics to suit their interests. The first task of all democrats must be to demand that any group... seeking to effect political change should reveal its funders.
http://tinyurl.com/7fxbqna
He's the kind of journalist we could use a whole damn regiment of. Diligent enough to find out the underlying facts, perspicacious enough to cut through the rhetoric, plainspoken enough to be easily comprehended, and stubborn enough to do all of the above regardless of who it pisses off.
Just look at their 2010 Prospectus. Here's the link to an org chart they displayed detailing their "process." I find the role of the "development" department is very, very interesting. "Donors" attending Monday meetings? Reviewing talking points and issues? Receiving progress reports? This is how a PR firm works.
http://ijish.livejournal.com/29235.html
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/peter-gleick-admits-to-deception-in-obtaining-heartland-climate-files/
The vast majority of the documents are, as laid out by Gleick, Heartland documents.
And, the two-pager was sent to Gleick, he lays out, and prompted him to go after the other material.
Who wrote that two pager? You're going to assert Gleick but if he did so before having the 100 other pages, how come the two pages are so accurate in terms of substance?
In any event, are you going to deal with the substance of all those other arguments or gleefully try to divert attention from the substance to what is, at best, a sideline issue?
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/02/leaked-docs-from-heartland-institute-cause-a-stir-but-is-one-a-fake/253165/
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/02/17/theft-and-apparent-forgery-of
Fake fake fakefake..............................fake.
Even McArdle thinks it is a fake and her reasons are dead on.
Defending a known liar and most likely a forger as well does nothing to help a cause. In fact, it demonstrates to thinking people that the cause is run by true-believers who are blnid to reason.
I'm not happy with the politics of climate change; I'm comfortable with the science, after having informed myself using secondary sources that use peer-reviewed literature.
To write this post, I had to find out what conservative group Siegel was talking about; he never says directly in the article, but the first link in the article tells you (and I had already guessed): It's REP, Republicans for Environmental Protection.
http://www.rep.org/
Politically, rather than scientifically, we have agreement among liberals, conservatives, the Vatican, and News Corp. that anthropogenic global warming is going on.
I really don't see how agreement could be any more complete than that.
This is an issue of corruption now. Corruption of the public discourse and corruption of our political system. And it must be stopped.
REP seems to be a good group. They are concerned, rightly I think, that conservatism will be tarnished by association with global warming denial. I may not agree with them on every issue but I can respect someone who engages based in reality.
THere are some posters who not only deny science but seem to delight in mis-information and calling others liars. Sadly even science has to confront the basal mind and its need to resist change and avoid intellectual growth.
Science is not politics and those who try to convert science into politics are promoting an agenda to serve their own purposes. Dening science is just a way to get what they want despite the facts.
Your story is incomplete without that admission.
1. Heartland states that it is a fake.
2. Gleick stated that he had the 2-pager sent/provided to him prior to seeing the other documents.
3. The two-pager material, in terms of 'substance', is corroborated in the other documents and by comments from people named in it. If you believe Gleick wrote it, how do you deal with his timeline that he went after the other documents because he had received the two pager?
4. Will you deal with the substance of what you call "the real docs"?
5. Huffington Post does not allow authors to change the posts, once published. Also, there is a (too long) delay between submitting something and its publication. I am unable to add something about Peter Gleick nor LA Times editorial nor ...
The substance of the real docs shows that Heartland is a small org that only puts a fraction of its small budget towards the climate issue.
Sorry to get after you for not updating. I understand your problem there.
First, from Huffington Post:
"Peter H. Gleick
President, Pacific Institute"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick
"Dr. Peter H. Gleick is co-founder and president of the Pacific Institute in Oakland, California. He is a hydroclimatologist by training, with a B.S. from Yale University and an M.S. and Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley from the Energy and Resources Group. His research and writing address the critical connections between water and human health, the hydrological impacts of climate change, sustainable water use, privatization and globalization, and international conflicts over water resources."
Second, from the encyclopedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Gleick
"Dr. Peter H. Gleick (born 1956) is a scientist working on issues related to the environment, economic development, and international security, with a focus on global freshwater challenges. He works at the Pacific Institute in Oakland, California, which he co-founded in 1987. In 2003 he was awarded a MacArthur Fellowship for his work on water resources. Among the issues he has addressed are conflicts over water resources , the impacts of climate change on water resources, the human right to water, and the problems of the billions of people without safe, affordable, and reliable water and sanitation. In 2006 he was elected to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences."
By Gary Wamsley
Colonel, USAF, Retired
When I read the original articles on the release of confidential documents from the Heartland Institute board meeting, (see They’re Coming for Your Kids) I was infuriated.
I reacted by sending a strongly worded email to the president and all the board members of the Heartland Institute.
Surprisingly, one board member and institute president Joseph Bast responded to my email.
Bast’s response is one that I would consider threatening. He said he was turning the email over to their legal department, the forensic staff and the FBI. He also warned me not to delete any emails.
Apparently, I was supposed to be frightened by the specter of this multimillion dollar non-profit (?) spending resources on an old veteran. The whole idea seems ludicrous and they know it. Still, I am not afraid of the battle if it comes. This is a tactic that big money often used to suppress free speech...
During my career I have been in position for many sensitive positions and have had top secret clearances, I have been investigated by the Civil Service Commission, the FBI and the Air Force Office of Special Investigations. I feel secure that the government knows who I am.
I decided to publish these emails so that you can judge the exchange for yourself.
http://www.berthoudrecorder.com/2012/02/19/heartland-institute-threatens-71-year-old-veteran/
Heartland's threatening Col. Wamsley with legal action for exercising his Constitutional freedom of speech is despicable; Heartland evidently does not support Consituional rights that Col. Wamsley served to protect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLAPP
"A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.
The typical SLAPP plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff's goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate. A SLAPP is often preceded by a legal threat."
Heartland's climate (mis)education plans.
goal is to sow confusion among teachers and students about what the science of climate change actually says. This is a strategy familiar to aficionados of creationist rhetoric (as is the idea of "both sides of the science"), but more importantly to those familiar with the history of tobacco industry obfuscation. As a famous memo to the tobacco industry argued in 1969: "Doubt is our product." Fewer people know that that line continues: "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the best means of establishing a controversy." (The link is more than rhetorical: Philip Morris gave significant funding to Heartland in the '90s, and the same document lists Philip Morris parent company Altria as a major donor today.)
Establishing a controversy and undermining public understanding of the body of fact on climate change are central to Heartland's account of their new climate change curriculum, and long-standing keys to Heartland's broader agenda.