It has been a rough few weeks for the Heartland Institute, the "intellectual" nexus of the fossil fuel-powered machine to disparage climate science in the United States. Nineteen corporations have pulled more than $1 million in expected funding, leading President Joe Bast to ask attendees at the recent Heartland climate denial conference whether they had a "rich uncle" who could help out. Seriously.
In a time when most news about climate change is bad, Heartland's decline has been a rare bright spot. Which has caused many observers to tackle the obvious question: how did this happen? In the reductive rendering of the mainstream media, the narrative has become that Heartland simply overplayed its hand by launching a billboard campaign comparing people who believe in global warming to the Unabomber and Osama Bin Laden, one of the single dumbest PR moves in recent history. Others have gone deeper, pointing out that Heartland has been painting itself into the crazy corner for a long time, and their lies were bound to catch up to them eventually. In that view, Heartland's demise was essentially inevitable.
While both of these narratives have elements of truth -- the billboards were incredibly stupid, and Heartland has been lying for a long time -- neither offer a full explanation because both tend to de-emphasize the crucial role of citizen action. Simply put, the post-billboard exodus of Heartland's corporate donors would have been neither as big nor as fast if not for the actions of thousands of everyday Americans calling those donors to account. Indeed, it might not have happened at all.
For those not following the saga, here is the basic chronology. In February, documents containing a list of Heartland funders were leaked to a number of bloggers by climate scientist Peter Gleick, who risked his professional reputation to expose the sources of Heartland's support. Two days later, Forecast the Facts launched a campaign calling on all corporations to pull out of Heartland, with our initial focus on General Motors. Within a week, more than 20,000 people (including 10,000 GM owners) had signed on. After adding their names to the effort, those citizen-activists then called GM, posted hundreds of comments on GM's Facebook page, uploaded photos of themselves with their GM cars, showed up at events where the GM CEO was speaking and generally made it clear that they were extremely upset about GM's Heartland association. After weeks of pressure, including considerable media coverage, GM pulled their support on March 28th -- more than a month before the now infamous billboards.
Forecast the Facts isn't an established player -- our ability to influence General Motors was not due to our reputation. It was entirely the result of our active members, who organized around an idea and spoke in a louder voice than any single person or institution could.
Because GM's pullout happened before Heartland's Unabomber messaging fiasco (a key story point that most reviews of Heartland's troubles overlook), it offers the clearest demonstration of how citizen activism can impact corporations. There is literally nothing more valuable to a public-facing company like General Motors than their brand. And in the wake of the bailout, GM has a great deal invested in building GM's environmental identity. Exhibit A: The Chevy Volt. 20,000 customers and potential customers pissed off about GM's ties to climate change denial represented a real threat to GM's image makeover. Which is why GM's CEO agreed to review the matter personally, and eventually decided that their twenty-year relationship with Heartland was just not worth the potential brand damage.
In the weeks following GM's announcement, Forecast the Facts staff, together with partners at Greenpeace, contacted the rest of Heartland's corporate donors to ask why they were still supporting climate change denial. In doing so, we made clear that we were speaking on behalf of the 20,000 people who had signed on to the campaign. And our questions sparked a conversation within many of those companies about whether the lobbying that Heartland did for them was worth the risk to their brand. In the case of the insurance industry, an active dialogue began about helping Heartland's insurance program, led by the non climate change-denying Eli Lehrer, to to spin-off, the functional equivalent of defunding Heartland.
Then came the billboards. The companies that had already been thinking about leaving because of the aforementioned public pressure immediately did so. Soon after, 150,000 more people joined the campaign through groups including 350.org, SumOfUs.org, League of Conservation Voters and the Sierra Club. And just as in the case of GM, those everyday people did more than just sign a petition. Thousands posted on company Facebook pages and chipped in to fund billboards calling out remaining Heartland holdouts, hundreds made phone calls to corporate headquarters, and dozens showed up in person to protest Heartland's conference. All of those actions sent a message to Heartland's remaining donors -- there are a lot of people who care about this issue, and your brand is at risk. In response, corporate supporters have continued to scurry for the exits.
I've asked a bunch of people why citizen activism tends to get short shrift, and I've gotten a lot of thoughtful responses. One of them stuck out as the most likely explanation, which is that people like the idea that Heartland carried within it the seeds of its own destruction: that is, Heartland consists of a bunch of unhinged conspiracy theorists who mislead the public for a living, they were destined to eventually destroy themselves because scientific truth inevitably wins. While that teleology is attractive, it dangerously ignores the fact that the truth only wins when enough people stand up on its behalf.
Institutions like Heartland don't fail just because they lie to the public. If that were true Heartland would have disintegrated a long time ago, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce would be defunct, and the corporate-funded campaign to discredit science would no longer hinder our societal response to the climate threat. Institutions like Heartland only crumble when people speak up and say they are tired of being lied to, and provide a credible threat to whoever makes the misinformation possible, in this case hypocritical corporate donors that profess to care about climate change while simultaneously supporting a group dedicated to the exact opposite purpose.
Why does this matter so much? Because when writers and pundits celebrate the everyday people who powered the Heartland campaign, they reinforce the behavior that is our only hope for real progress on climate change. A shift in cultural attitudes and the attendant policy changes will only come when enough people consistently, loudly and unrepentantly reject climate denial and demand action. So when everyday people do exactly that, and their actions make an impact, they deserve to be credited. Unless, of course, we don't really care if those people do it again.
Follow Daniel Souweine on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@forecastfacts
Bill McKibben: The Planet Wreckers
Insurance Think Tank Splits from Heartland, Reorganizes as R Street Institute
Heartland Institute's Self-Inflicted Downfall
Group pulls plug on billboard linking global warming believers to terrorists
Orkneygal: "Dr Bob Carter-One of Gaia's most hard working Truth Seekers!"
Dear Orkneygal,
Isn't Heartland Institute "Expert" Dr. Bob Carter committing facto global warming fraud by misrepresenting increasing global temperature trend lines as flat?*
Isn't that like a climate science scam, a global warming hoax?
If you disagree please provide a scientifically-valid explanation for Bob Carter's gross misrepresentation of scientific data.
Also:
You Orkneygal have indicated that you live in New Zealand - what relationship do you have with Bob Carter's global warming "skeptic" organization the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC)?
Please finally answer these questions instead of continuing to run away from them - thank you.
------------------
* http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/bob_carters_trend_lines.php
No I'm not making biochar. I don't even know what that is. Sounds like what you get when you turn up the heat and leave it on for too long.
Sorry honey, no dinner tonight. Just biochar.
Like that.
Dear Mr. Lakely,
I asked you the following twice downthread - I am asking it again here in yet another effort to get a response from you.
Heartland Institute "Expert" Dr. Robert M "Bob" Carter has claimed:
"There was no temperature increase from 1979 to 1995"
-and-
"There was no change [in temperature] between 1999 and through today"
http://www.sydneyminingclub.org/presentations/2011/april/bob-carter/index.htm
[Slide 6: "Satellite Temperatures, 1979-2011" at the 1:35-minute mark ]
As can be seen in that link, to support his assertion Dr. Carter shows UAH global satellite temperature data and puts flat "lines" across the data for those time periods.
The statistically uneducated observer might be mislead into assuming that the lines Carter drew there are statistically-derived trend lines. As statistician Tamino demonstrates that assumption however would not be correct; statistical trend lines over those periods with respect to that data in fact show warming trends.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/bob-carter-does-his-business/
Mr. Lakely,
My 'Yes' or 'No' question to you, again, is the following:
Do you agree that Dr. Bob Carter's analysis that I have addressed here is not statistically or scientifically valid? 'Yes' or 'No'?
And if 'No':
Please explain in statistical and scientific detail why you instead think that Carter's analysis that I have addressed here is or even could be statistically and scientifically valid - thank you.
I call that weasel behavior. Can't stand and deliver here, but chooses to go over to a prominent denier site and gloats. Lakely even exhorts the pitchfork crowd at watts to come over and join in the fray. Heartland propaganda all day long from Jim Lakely.
Hey Lakely, looks like you didn't tell them that watts and company are sponsored by Heartland, did you?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/02/heartland-doubled-the-number-of-individual-donors-since-peter-gleicks-fakegate-scandal/#comments
Exxon/Heartland/Watts
public relations, specializing in billboards
The MWP deniers, (IPCC, US EPA, CSIRO and UK’s MET Office) will never admit the similarity of current global climate to the MWP because their religious-like belief in AGW is exposed for the steaming pile of junk science that it truly is.
Climate change is complex and not well understood.
Since the world was just as warm in the past when CO2 levels were significantly lower, CO2 cannot be the earth's sole temperature regulator. There must be other factors.
This wonderful warming period has powered the social and industrial advances that have made modern people the healthiest and most prosperous in history. MWP deniers want us to believe that plant friendly and life giving CO2 is a bad thing to better advance their meglomanical desire to both boss around the developed world and further impoverish the poor while pocketing a lot of taxpayer money along the way.
Useless, misguided attempts to control carbon are not the answer to the ever changing climate. There is only one answer to changes in climate that has ever worked for humanity.
Adaptation.
One of the many links to the overwhelming Paleoclimate evidence of the global nature of the MWP is below.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
Even if what you wrote about the extent of MWP were true (which it isn't), a globally warm MWP wouldn't say ANYTHING about the causes for the CURRENT warming.
And you have thoughtfully provided the reason why this is so in your own comment:
"CO2 cannot be the earth's sole temperature regulator. There must be other factors."
Well, OF COURSE there are other factors.
And the existence of these other factors is precisely why nothing about the warmth of the MWP, no matter how warm it was, no mater how global it was, can EVER show that CO2 isn't the prmary cause of the current warming.
Here is your argument: "The MWP was globally warm, so the current warming can't be CO2-related."
This argument only makes sense if the cause of all climate changes must be the same. Yet you yourself kindly point out that this is not the case.
In other words, you've managed to torpedo your own argument. It has sunk with all hands.
Well played!
The IPCC does, however, argue that CO2 and other manmade greenhouse gases are indeed the primary regulator of Earth's climate, claiming that late 20th century warming can not be explained any other way. The paleo climate evidence indicates the IPCC argument is sunk, with all hands. There is another way to explain the warming. They just refuse to look at the possibility.
Got any more science denier straw men, Orkneygal?
Of course you do.
Me: "Got any more science denier straw men, Orkneygal?"
Orkneygal: "I don' use strawmen."
---------------------------------------------------
Dear Orkneygal,
You are having trouble with the truth again.
If you disagree name ONE climate scientist, scientific organization, government organization, and/or environmental organization who asserts that CO2 is "the earth's sole temperature regulator."
Good luck with that.
"So not only is Heartland not “down” a net $1 million, we’re up in funds, overall."
Given the source, it confirms that Heartland's had a financial face plant.
It has been a rough 15 years for the CAGW scamsters since temps have been constant as CO2 concentrations have risen, falsifying the theories upon which this hoax is based.
The accusations of scams and falsifying and hoaxes are tossed around irresponsibly.
How would you like to be held accountable for your innuendo and slander? You cannot back up any of the slime you throw around.
CAGW is the Goebell's inspired meme championed by the Rommulans to scare the feeble minded.
Orkneygal again plays the N-card.
How... predictable.
As "CAGW" is not a scientifically-valid acronym and climate science self-styled "skeptics" are the group that pushes and generally uses it it's also ironic.
That's just flat-out untrue:
http://bit.ly/NvkJEI
The temperature trend over the last 15 years is +1.6C/century. That's "constant" to you?
And the warming over the last 15 years has occurred DESPITE an increase in atmospheric aerosols, historically low solar activity, and a predominantly La Nina pattern, all of which are temporary cooling factors that are masking the underlying warming trend to one extent or another.
Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) have shown that if you remove the influence of such temporary effects, there has been NO slowing of the underlying CO2-based warming trend in recent years.
You've either been fooled by industry propaganda or you're one of those who are spreading it.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp-dts/
1998 Peak was hottest ever!
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp-dts/
1998 Peak was hottest ever!"
Orkneygal is evidently unable to read and correctly interpret very simple graphs - shocking.
Are you - like Dr. Bob Carter - a paid Heartland Institute "Expert", Orkneygal?
Then again, what else would you expect from the "communications director" of a fossil fuel-funded PR firm?
Dear Mr. Lakely,
Heartland Institute "Expert" Dr. Robert M "Bob" Carter has claimed:
"There was no temperature increase from 1979 to 1995"
-and-
"There was no change [in temperature] between 1999 and through today"
http://www.sydneyminingclub.org/presentations/2011/april/bob-carter/index.htm
[Slide 6: "Satellite Temperatures, 1979-2011" at the 1:35-minute mark ]
As can be seen in that link, to support his assertion Dr. Carter shows UAH global satellite temperature data and puts flat "lines" across the data for those time periods.
The statistically uneducated observer might be mislead into assuming that the lines Carter drew there are statistically-derived trend lines. As statistician Tamino demonstrates that assumption however would not be correct; statistical trend lines over those periods with respect to that data in fact show warming trends.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/bob-carter-does-his-business/
Mr. Lakely,
My 'Yes' or 'No' question to you is the following:
Do you agree that Dr. Bob Carter's analysis that I have addressed here is not statistically or scientifically valid? 'Yes' or 'No'?
And if 'No':
Please explain in statistical and scientific detail why you instead think that Carter's analysis that I have addressed here is or even could be statistically and scientifically valid - thank you.
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/1662151109001”
Isn't Heartland Institute "Expert" Dr. Bob Carter misrepresenting increasing global UAH temperature trend lines as flat, as demonstrated by statistician Tamino?*
If you disagree please provide a scientifically-valid explanation for Bob Carter's misrepresentation of scientific data.
Bob Carter is a leader of and/or major contributor to several of the most prominent organizations that are "skeptical" of man-made global warming, including:
* The Heartland Institute
* The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)
* The Science & Public Policy Institute (SPPI)
* The Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
* The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)
* The International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)
Also:
You Orkneygal have indicated that you live in New Zealand - what relationship do you have with Bob Carter's global warming "skeptic" organization the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC)?
Please finally answer these questions instead of continuing to run away from them - thank you.
------------------
* http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/bob_carters_trend_lines.php
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/bob-carter-does-his-business/
America’s Power, the people behind the "Clean Coal" campaign, claim that the coal industry is working on carbon capture technology, which, to me, is tacet acknowledgement that carbon dioxide is harmful and needs to be captured.
What is the Heartland Institute’s position on carbon dioxide? If it is different from that of the coal industry, and if so, why is that?
Also, combustion of fossil fuels creates NOx which contributes to smog and ground level ozone. Do you think that the suppliers of fossil fuel products that create NOx and other photochemically active pollutants should be made to pay for the pain and suffering, illness and death, that is caused by these pollutants? Or do you think that the people who profit from these substances should be allowed to kill and torture freely?
Thanks. Thanks a lot.
"America’s Power, the people behind the "Clean Coal" campaign, claim that the coal industry is working on carbon capture technology, which, to me, is tacet acknowledgement that carbon dioxide is harmful and needs to be captured."
Actually, that is simply an acknowledgment that federal mandates require such measures. If you want a better explanation on their position, you ought to ask them.
"What is the Heartland Institute’s position on carbon dioxide? If it is different from that of the coal industry, and if so, why is that?"
The Heartland Institute, as an entity, doesn't take positions. But many of the scientists who attended our seventh International Conference on Climate Change noted the obvious fact that plants love CO2. You like vegetation, don't you? Why don't you watch some of the presentations at our conference? It's all up on our website — videos, as well as downloadable MP3s and PowerPoints.
http://climateconferences.heartland.org/
Cheers,
Jim
Did they also note the obvious fact that fish love water, showing that flooding is good?
What amazes me is not that you can actually say this without cracking up, but that so many otherwise intelligent people are so easily fooled by such transparently absurd logic.
The big trouble with your piece, Daniel, is that its overall theme – that Heartland is in “decline” and has brought about its own “downfall” – is simply not true. To borrow from Mark Twain: Reports of Heartland’s demise are greatly exaggerated.
As Mr. Bast explains in his blog post, the idea Heartland is being crippled by an exodus of corporate donors is false: “Most of the donors who have said they won’t continue to support us have agreed to fund new or existing groups that will continue our work; some already contributed this year before their announcements; and others had indicated they would not fund us even before the billboard controversy. We have now raised considerably more from current and new donors than we may have lost due to the controversy.”
Heartland has already doubled the number of individual donors since Peter Gleick’s Fakegate scandal, and we expect that number to continue to rise steeply throughout 2012. So not only is Heartland not “down” a net $1 million, we’re up in funds, overall.
In short, the opposite of what leftist activists intended – let alone claim to have achieved – has actually occurred. If you think 2012 marks the “demise” of Heartland Institute, I suggest you check back in 10 years. We’ll still be here.
Gleick is a hero. Most of his documents are accurate, whoever sourced them.
It is so predictable that if someone says Heartland is in decline that you would immediately think of income.
The rest of us see it as an expose of the Heartland soul and morality. You guys seem to actually believe yourselves. That happens when you are so completely insulated from reality.
Now for the rest of them. This disinformation campaign will not stop with Bast's exposure. The fossil fuel industry will not allow their future reserves to be devalued without a fight. But you have shown that we can beat them and their money. Let's get to it!
Take a memo!
ILF is a staunch and witty defender of science.
Now you (GSR) are going to have to go back and read all of Fiction's past posts for the humor.