Secret budget and fundraising documents of the Chicago-based Heartland Institute, a libertarian "think tank" and a leading voice of U.S. climate change denialism, lay out the group's plans to spend $100,000 preparing a phony K-12 science curriculum based on propaganda and pushing an ideological agenda.
The plans call for a 20-module curriculum for K-12 science classes emphasizing what Heartland claims to be the "scientific controversy" around climate science. The curriculum is to be prepared by Dr. David Wojick, who the Heartland Institute lists as one of their experts. According to the leaked fundraising plan:
[Wojick] has conducted extensive research on environmental and science education for the Department of Energy. In the course of this research, he has identified what subjects and concepts teachers must teach, and in what order (year by year), in order to harmonize with national test requirements.
I checked with Jen Stuntsman, a U.S. Department of Energy spokesperson, about Wojick's expertise. Stuntsman told me that Wojick has never done any scientific research for DOE, in climate change or any other scientific topic. She gave me the following DOE statement for the record:
David Wojick has been a part-time support contractor for the Office of Scientific and Technical Information since 2003, working to help the office manage and organize its electronic databases. He has never advised or conducted research for the Department on climate change or any other scientific topic, and the office he works for is not a research organization. As would be the case for any of the Department's roughly 100,000 contractors, his collaboration with the Heartland Institute is outside of any consulting work he has done with the Department, and any comments he makes on the subject matter of climate change are made as a public citizen and are not reflective of any Energy Department policies or research.
Wojick did not return a request for an interview.
So Wojick's expertise is as a contractor to help DOE manage their databases. It has nothing whatsoever to do with climate science or any other scientific research. So why is he being paid $100,000 to prepare a national K-12 science curriculum on the subject?
The answer seems to be because his PhD and DOE affiliation lends him a veneer of credibility which the Heartland Institute can use to market him to the unsuspecting science teacher, administrator, school board member and parents. This is similar to the tactic the organization used to promote the OISM Petition Project, in which they claimed that more than 31,000 "scientists" had signed a statement saying they disagreed with the mainstream scientific consensus on climate change. The only problem is that 99.9% of the scientists listed in the Petition Project are not climate scientists. The petition is open to anyone with a Bachelor of Science degree. This is one of the foundations to their claim of a "scientific controversy."
According to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, however, there is no scientific controversy about anthropogenic global warming. The organization released a recent report stating that the science is supported by so many independent lines of data over the last 50 years that it should now be regarded as "settled facts." This is similar to the conclusions of every other national academy of sciences around the world.
The other reason to pay Wojick is because the curriculum has nothing to do with science -- but Heartland says that through his DOE work, "he has contacts at virtually all the national organizations involved in producing, certifying, and promoting science curricula."
So a major factor appears to be Wojick's access to a pipeline to spread disinformation into the nation's K-12 school resource stream.
If there is a perception of a controversy, that is enough to persuade many science teachers to give it a pass in order to avoid being hassled by politically motivated parents, or "parent triggers," and uneducated politicians. This is the same strategy often used by political opponents of teaching evolution in science classes. The secret documents show the curriculum is intended to create a similar false sense of scientific controversy:
Dr. Wojick proposes to begin work on "modules" for grades 10-12 on climate change ("whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy"), climate models ("models are used to explore various hypotheses about how climate works. Their reliability is controversial"), and air pollution ("whether CO2 is a pollutant is controversial. It is the global food supply and natural emissions are 20 times higher than human emissions").
Wojick would produce modules for Grades 7-9 on environmental impact ("environmental impact is often difficult to determine. For example there is a major controversy over whether or not humans are changing the weather"), for Grade 6 on water resources and weather systems, and so on.
But this is not science; it is antiscience. It is the corruption of science, because it is creating a curriculum that is not based on knowledge gained from 50 years of observation and experimentation, but is instead promulgating a predetermined political objective that has been set not by the laws of nature, but by the Heartland Institute and its donors.
And who might those donors be? The Heartland Institute's secret fundraising document details the corporations that are supporting their varied activities.
They include Allied World Assurance Company, AT&T, Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, Comcast, Eli Lilly, General Motors Foundation, John William Pope Foundation, Kaiser Family Foundation, Microsoft, Murray Energy Corporation, Reynolds American, State Farm, Time Warner Cable, and USAA.
If you deal with these corporations, you might ask them why they fund an organization engaged, in substantial part, in the unAmerican activity of dumbing down U.S. science education for political ends.
Get Shawn Lawrence Otto's new book: Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America, Starred Kirkus Review; Starred Publishers Weekly review. Visit him at http://www.shawnotto.com. Like him on Facebook. Join ScienceDebate.org to get the presidential candidates to debate science.
Follow Shawn Lawrence Otto on Twitter: www.twitter.com/shawnotto
Was the headliner yesterday.
If you agree, please sign the petition and share with friends.
"Then too, it is now generally accepted that the temperature increase in the first third of the century was due to increased solar input, not increasing CO2. We now know that the sun varies over time. This shows that rising temperatures are not necessarily caused by rising CO2 levels. The temperature went up but not because of CO2."
I like the first part, "then too, it is now"
Time travel!
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2006/12/wojick-summary-david-williams.html
Evolution is both real scientific theory and scientifc fact.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
whosa: "Regarding climate it seems to me the scientific community should be able to come to an accord of "generally accepted" principles"
National Academy of Sciences (2010):
---------------------------------------------------------------
From a philosophical perspective, science never proves anything—in the manner that mathematics or other formal logical systems prove things—because science is fundamentally based on observations. Any scientific theory is thus, in principle, subject to being refined or overturned by new observations.
In practical terms, however, scientific uncertainties are not all the same. Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782
But the physics of atmospheric gasses, and its effects on the climate system, is not part of a debate. It is itself. And it will do its thing whatever your views or mine.
It seems to me entirely justified to teach our kids that there are different potential ways to control the release of greenhouse gasses and to address the effects of anthropogenic climate change.
As long as this discussion is honest and open it will do them good.
What is not acceptible is to teach kids that the effects of anthropgenic GHG emmissions is other than they are or that doubt implies paralysis.
Where honest reasoning based on honest evidence becomes unacceptable our future is bleak. Remember Lysenko?
----------------------------
As scientists who have had their emails stolen, posted online and grossly misrepresented, we can appreciate the difficulties the Heartland Institute is currently experiencing following the online posting of the organization’s internal documents earlier this week. However, we are greatly disappointed by their content, which indicates the organization is continuing its campaign to discredit mainstream climate science and to undermine the teaching of well-established climate science in the classroom.
We know what it feels like to have private information stolen and posted online via illegal hacking. It happened to climate researchers in 2009 and again in 2011. Personal emails were culled through and taken out of context before they were posted online... the Heartland Institute was among the groups that spread false allegations about what these stolen emails said...
So although we can agree that stealing documents and posting them online is not an acceptable practice, we would be remiss if we did not point out that the Heartland Institute has had no qualms about utilizing and distorting emails stolen from scientists...
We hope the Heartland Institute will begin to play a more constructive role in the policy debate. Refraining from misleading attacks on climate science and climate researchers would be a welcome first step toward having an honest, fact-based debate about the policy responses to climate change.
http://tinyurl.com/6uaynca (pdf)
Who really are the children abusers? I' tell you here ... it's in this quote:-
According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".
"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said (UK, Independent March 2000)
Here's the judgment: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html
Whether Dr. Viner is correct or not depends on the meaning of "a few years."
That ill-advised video was meant as obvious sarcasm. But you knew that... right?
MH: "Tell that to the parents of kids forced to watch the Al Gore Video which a UK judge ordered could not be shown to children due to the lies."
Speaking of lies, that claim of yours is patently false.
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/
If only the FBI could submit an invoice to Heartland for whatever amount of OUR money it was forced to waste on this. It's not Heartland's money, of course--they're tax-exempt. For some reason.
The modern warming spike has slowly increased since the 1850's or so. It has taken a rapid turn skyward in about 1970. The rise has been accelerating ever since.
Btw, your link doesn't work.
Nor does your logic. The fact that the regional medieval period was warm does not explain today's unprecedented global temperature rise This unprecedented temperature spike is caused by the spike in CO2 emissions from combustion of fossil fuels. The modern temperature spike, since the 1970's, surpasses medieval temperatures.
Dunno what all your vitriol and hatred and fake sarcasm is about. Maybe a smoke screen to cover up shaky science.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/past-reconstructions/
The Loehle paper might also have held more weight if it was published in a reputable scientific journal, as opposed to one where the lead editor is a non-scientist global warming "skeptic" with an admitted political agenda.
My expertise in the climate science debate comes from 20 years of study. My Ph.D. is in the philosophy of science, especially the logic of complex issues. My funding comes from free lance writing and policy analysis. While climate scientists study climate, I study their reasoning.
These two research thrusts came together when I noticed that almost all of the Web-based educational resources on climate change merely parrot the company line about dangerous human induced warming. There is very little on the scientific debate, which I see as one of the great scientific debates in history. So I have set out to fill this void. The debate is now so widespread that any science teacher who cannot demonstrate knowledge of it will quickly lose credibility. But the grand challenge is that scientific controversy is not typically taught in K-12, even though it is the heart of the scientific frontier. This is the fun part.
What you are calling one of "the great scientific debates in history" is not considered as such by actual working Physicists and Chemists.
How do you explain this discrepancy?
Only the creme de la creme get a job in Heartland ... because they are struggling to fund two projects employing a total of two people.
What is your scientific education and professional experience that somehow leads you to believe that you understand more about climate science than the experts at the U.S. National Academy of Sciences?
U.S. National Academy of Sciences (2010):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that Earth is warming. Strong evidence also indicates that recent warming is largely caused by human activities, especially the release of greenhouse gases through the burning of fossil fuels...
While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations.
http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/Science-Report-Brief-final.pdf
On the one side is science.
On the other is Heartland and its minions.
By the way, how are things going, minion-wise?
---------------------------------------------------------------
From a philosophical perspective, science never proves anything—in the manner that mathematics or other formal logical systems prove things—because science is fundamentally based on observations. Any scientific theory is thus, in principle, subject to being refined or overturned by new observations.
In practical terms, however, scientific uncertainties are not all the same. Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782
---------------------------------------------
There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities. This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate.
Action taken now to reduce significantly the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will lessen the magnitude and rate of climate change...
Failure to implement significant reductions in net greenhouse gas emissions now, will make the job much harder in the future.
----------------
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências Brazil
Academié des Sciences, France
Accademia dei Lincei, Italy
Royal Society, United Kingdom
Royal Society of Canada, Canada
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina, Germany
Science Council of Japan, Japan
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
Indian National Science Academy, India
Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf