Slashdot Mirror
Leaked Heartland Institute Documents Reveal Opposition To Science
New submitter bheerssen writes with an excerpt from an article by The Bad Astronomer: "The Heartland Institute — a self-described 'think tank' that actually serves in part as a way for climate change denialism to get funded — has a potentially embarrassing situation on their hands. Someone going by the handle 'Heartland Insider' has anonymously released quite a few of what are claimed to be internal documents from Heartland, revealing the Institute's strategies, funds, and much more."
At least one site has the documents in question.
Principals and teachers are heavily biased toward the alarmist perspective. To counter this we are considering launching an effort to develop alternative materials for K-12 classrooms. We are pursuing a proposal from Dr. David Wojick to produce a global warming curriculum for K-12 schools. Dr. Wojick is a consultant with the office of Scientific and Technical Information at the U.S. Department of Energy in the area of information and communication science. His effort will focus on providing a curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain--two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science. We tentatively plan to pay Dr. Wojick $100,000 for 20 modules in 2012, with funding pledged by the Anonymous Donor.
Wow, they didn't even bother to put the "science" in quotation marks. Guess they *really* never thought these documents would get out. Pretty dumb to use that kind of language, even in purely internal communications. About all they can say at this point is that it was a poorly-proofed typo (that they *meant* to say "bad science" or something). But even that would qualify as a Freudian slip of the fingers, methinks.
Even creepier is the way they capitalize "the Anonymous Donor." Makes me think of a guy petting a cat in a secret island compound somewhere.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
That's pretty much what FOX News will say.
Who am I kidding? FOX isn't going to run this at all.
bah.
Cue the climate change denials in 3...2...1...
Nice try but your clever use of math will not fool us.
Ha, you'll be lucky if *CNN* even runs it. They're way too busy showing important interviews with Whitney Houston's maid to fit such silly science news in.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
We've all known these groups were anti-science. While seeing it spelled out on paper is amusing, and satisfying, I doubt that very many minds are going to be changed by this information. The people that populate and fund these groups ignore anything and everything that conflicts with their ideas as it is.
These people are used to the extreme mental acrobatics necessary to deny the reality right in front of them. This will be written off as "liberal lies and smear tactics" pretty much immediately. It's not so much that they believe the crap these groups spew, a lot of people simply take the opposite stance of their political opponents regardless. Since climate change is a "liberal" thing, it's all a lie, because all "liberals" are liars.
Still, like I said, it's nice to see what we've all already suspected confirmed in writing. These guys are in the same league as Big Tobacco with their bullshit.
Just to point out that the real incriminating evidence comes from the "2012 Climate Strategy" document that could be falsified. The other documents, like the budget, look pretty legit but the document you are citing is a page and a half. Wouldn't take much for me, someone who is ultra opposed to the Heartland Institute, to dream that up in a short afternoon with a six pack. I'm poking through the rest of them and am not finding the same sort of evidence. So it's possible that someone could have gotten their hands on a few legit documents (like the budget) and created this one and added it to the group. The metadata on the meeting agendas and such read "jbast" while the metadata on the climate strategy document reads "Joseph Bast." Entirely possible they were created two different ways but then why does the climate strategy document appear photoscanned? Is he photoscanning his own internal documents? Why? Or did someone want this to look legit, photoscan it and then write "Joseph Bast" as the author to make it look authentic?
I'm just pleading for people to exercise caution. I think that the best approach for this is to put forth questions towards Dr. Wojick about his funding and move forward with caution. This is the internet. This is an area where I require a lot of verification before I believe something. The climate strategy document is awful convenient and as someone who's use to corporate bullshit, I can tell you my manager could easily produce a 15 page document on our team's "vision" and "mission statements" or "strategy." Mostly to prove he's worth something but also because that just seems to be how they roll. Two pages can be made up and I would imagine the real thing would have a lot more fluff and a lot more boring in it. I'm not saying this document is a fake, I'm just urging everyone to exercise caution before you look like a rube.
My work here is dung.
Wait, NOW context matters? Where were you when your fellow "skeptics" (I put that term in quotes, because most of your fellows who call themselves that are lousy skeptics) were pulling out half-sentence quotes from emails to prove a vast and global conspiracy?
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
The difference being that ID has maybe two or three actual scientists who work in fields related to biology backing it, and the most important one of those, Michael Behe, doesn't even publish peer reviewed articles that deal with his ID claims. AGW on the other hand, is widely accepted by most researchers in climatology and related fields, the debate being more about the degree of influence of human activity or the speed at which changes will occur.
In other words, it isn't the same thing at all.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The big argument about this being a "smoking gun" is one sentence, where someone typed "dissuading teachers from teaching science" instead of "dissuading teachers from teaching this lousy excuse for a science?"
With just 5 minutes scanning the documents, I saw that. And also the fact that Fred Singer is paid $60,000 per annum to "regularly and publicly counter the alarmist AGW message." Now that's quite a bonus given that his employer is the University of Virginia. This isn't paying a professor to do research, this is paying a professor to do propaganda.
This is the real smoking gun. There are a handful of scientists worldwide that deny the AGW consensus. The question is why? The assumption used to be that they were handsomely paid to do it. That is now fact.
Regarding authenticity, I can confirm the information relating to Ben Boychuk in the budget document. He did indeed leave Heartland for Manhattan Institute. I had dinner with the guy once, but he de-friended me on FB because I kept challenging the crazy links he would post.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
Climate science indicates that the world is warming. Whether the globe is warming to human activity or excess flatulation from aardvarks is immaterial.
The best models indicate that the trend will continue. The best theoretic models predict that this will cause the polar ice caps to change: some cause it to melt, others to increase in size. Both outcomes are dire, massive increase in ocean levels resulting in New York becoming New Venice or a mile thick wall of ice rolling down over the Northern Hemisphere.
I'm a software engineer. I don't pretend to understand climatology, however I do know how to manage risk. When the evidence is pointing to a potential disaster, be it projects running late, major requirements being added at the last minute or something akin to the end of the world as we know it, I don't waste time with the "finger of blame". I ask, how do we mitigate the issue?
Since we don't know the root cause (or if there is even a single root cause), lets take action on all fronts and use this as an opportunity to make our lifestyles more sustainable and less impactful on the planet. Legislate lower vehicular emissions and mass transit use. Use incentives to get people to cycle or walk. Require companies to institute work-from-home plans. Slap taxes on pollution from industries to force them to reduce their emissions. Bar import of goods from countries that don't adhere to the global standard. Humans (and the companies they run) are adaptable, they'll find other work.
If we're wrong and global warming isn't actually happening, at least we'll have some positive outcomes. If we're right, maybe we can prevent a total catastrophe. Inaction, garners little or no benefit if human-caused GW isn't actually occurring, but will be a direct contributor to disaster if it is.
The Canadian fishing industry is a good example. Those folks who lost their jobs are hurting, but they are alive and there is some chance that the fishing will reopen. If GW is real, millions if not billions will die from starvation, be displaced into refugee camps as their towns are flooded or be impacted by regional conflicts as countries struggle to deal with the changing climate.
FTFA: "uses that advocacy to raise money from oil companies and other corporations whose interests are threatened by climate policies. Heartland particularly celebrates the funding that it receives from the fossil fuel fortune being the Charles G. Koch Foundation."
Once again it comes down to Oil and Money with one organization steering the whole ship. Lessee... so the shopping list must look a bit like this:
[x] legal system pwned by koch
[x] judicial system pwned by koch
[x] polictical system pwned by koch
[ ] education sytsem pwned by koch
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Wait, NOW context matters? Where were you when your fellow "skeptics"
Context always matters.
If somebody tells you that context doesn't matter, then you should consider that that person probably is lying to you or at least isn't giving you the full truth. Whatever side they're on.
It's also not fair to beat somebody up over what somebody else who may or may not have similar beliefs said. If one person who supports cause X says something, and somebody else who supports cause X says something else -- that's not evidence of hypocrisy. It's evidence of disagreement, and if you really do think that everybody who supports cause X agrees on everything, the problem is with you, not them.
And yes, this is just one sentence. It could be exactly what they meant, or it could just be a miswording of things -- it certainly wouldn't be the first. One will have to look at context to figure out what they really meant.
By revelation of these emails, Fred Singer's respect in peer reviewed literature has dropped to slightly lower than the asshole liars who used to publish "peer reviewed" studies backed by tobacco companies claiming that tobacco smoke isn't related to cancer...
Wow, denier funding is peanuts. These documents contradict the constant claims of 'well funded climate denialism'. It shows they were never true, alarmists simply made them up.
For years I never really knew if deniers were well funded or not. Now I know they were never well funded.
Its the greenies who have been well funded all along.
Thank you Desmogblog. Nice work
There's a funding topic that seems relevant to slashdot. Microsoft are one of the contributors. Whilst Microsoft are a scummy company I can't see AGW denial is particularly in their interests. Is this perhaps some employee donation matching scheme, or some other mechanism where an employees personal views have resulted in a donation to Heartland?
Ah, but if you follow along with the AGW crowd and implement all the regulations and laws they require to "solve" global warming (which incidentally are exactly what one side of the political spectrum wants, but are anathema to the other side) then you must be a patriot right?
I've come to realize recently that I really agree with most of the arguments of AGW.
But
I think they are wildly optimistic at how effective their regulations will be at changing the situation and are oblivious to the fact that regulations with enough impact to make a change will have severely adverse consequences of the economy and personal freedom.
Recently, it was posited on line that it was more likely that the free market and the decreasing supply of fossil fuels (leading to cost increases) will naturally spur on innovations that achieve the goals many environmentalists have, but that many laws proposed have serious negative and draconian impacts on the economy and the people.
An opportune question is, if you're paying people to not emit CO2, then how do you effectively stop rampant corruption in the market from people who say that they'll generate less CO2, but just want you to pay them money to do nothing? Cap and Trade is a false market that is incapable of avoiding both fraud and regulatory capture.
Someone needs to develop energy solutions that can replace fossil fuels that deliver the same amount of energy for nearly the same cost. That's where the bar is. If you can do that you'll end up rich and will save the planet, if you can't, taxing people for CO2 emissions isn't going to make it happen.
And before anyone brings it up, yes, subsidies for the fossil fuel industry have to go to keep the marketplace fair and encourage development of new technology.
Alternate energy technology is our only hope. I'm sorry, governmental worldwide restrictions and regulations are too dangerous and too prone to misuse.
The most damning part of the climate strategy document wasn't the curriculum stuff, it was this:
In other words, they don't want a debate.
The budget document says that their key projects are (in order of funding): eliminating or reducing FDA approval requirements for new medicines, opposing the Wisconsin recall elections (i.e. anti-union activity), opposing global warming, supporting charter schools and the privatization of education, supporting fracking, and a couple of Chicago-specific items. The Wisconsin work goes by the name Operation Angry Badger, for no apparent reason.
The fundraising document is the most interesting, and describes an "Anonymous Donor" who once gave them half of their money but is now merely the largest donor. This donor is particularly interested in climate change, and has earmarked the majority of his donations for related projects.
There's a description of their anti-IPCC report project:
Again with the anonymous donors.
There's a long description of the anti-AGW curriculum project. It was proposed by a consultant who works with the Department of Energy, Dr. David Wojick. Wojick studies science education, and his knowledge of national test requirements and contacts in educational organizations are described as his key attributes. He is not described as a climate scientist.
Visit the
AGW has this.
You've just been living under a rock and not paying attention to the overwhelming number of papers confirming it.
I wonder if the Hearland is going to revise it's positionon the release of the so called "Climategate" emails.
"The release of these documents creates an opportunity for reporters, academics, politicians, and others who relied on the IPCC to form their opinions about global warming to stop and reconsider their position. The experts they trusted and quoted in the past have been caught red-handed plotting to conceal data, hide temperature trends that contradict their predictions, and keep critics from appearing in peer-reviewed journals. This is new and real evidence that they should examine and then comment on publicly."
I must have missed the link where they correct this and admit the entire Climategate "controversy" was proven false, and that no deliberate manipulation of data was actually found. I am sure they are still working on that release...
"But this one goes to 11!"
No, its not fact at all. Yes, SOME may have been paid to be deniers, but some were simply questioning the"science" (see what I did there?) behind AGW, as they still do.
Fred Singer is one of the top 3 denialists in the world. We now know he's paid $60,000 per annum to do propaganda. Not research. Propaganda.
As for getting paid, wasn't all that long ago that a respected researcher could get drummed out of the academy for denying agw
Be specific.
Some of the mitigation fits with other looming problems; namely the end of cheap oil. Sooner or later (some say sooner, some say later) we're going to run out of cheap oil, and it isn't just energy that's going to take the hit. The value of long-chain hydrocarbons to a multitude of industrial, fabrication and industrial processes cannot be minimized. People don't seem to understand that it isn't just the price of a gallon of gas that will skyrocket, a large portion of the things that make the industrialized world go round will suddenly become much more expensive.
So, the potential mitigation of AGW and the solution to peak oil are the same. Stop using oil and other fossil fuels as fuels. The sooner the better. Invest in alternative energies, even if the costs are very high, because the costs when everyone finally agrees peak oil has been reached will be far worse in every possible way. There is every reason to begin to switch from a fossil fuel based economy, and no reason other than laziness and contempt for future generations to continue on the course we have chosen.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Cirby on the leaked Heartland Institute documents:
The big argument about this being a "smoking gun" is one sentence, where someone typed "dissuading teachers from teaching science" instead of "dissuading teachers from teaching this lousy excuse for a science?"
Pretty weak stuff, overall.
Cirby in 2009 about the leaked CRU documents:
It's even better - the source cited in the story above is the CRU (funny how "University of East Anglia" started being the source when everyone found out that CRU was more than a bit corrupt) - the same people who just got busted with all of that leaked data and incriminating emails just this week.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1453158&cid=30193346
Hypocrite.
So, it's bullshit.
Knock yourself out buddy:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
respect in peer reviewed literature has dropped to slightly lower than the asshole liars who used to publish "peer reviewed" studies backed by tobacco companies claiming that tobacco smoke isn't related to cancer...
The Heartland Institute used to do that too.
Except they weren't on the "tobacco smoke isn't related to cancer" bandwagon
They jumped in later, when the claim was "second hand smoke is perfectly safe"
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Oh, and just in case you want to save yourself the effort of re-reproducing the effort:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2011/1021/Climate-study-funded-in-part-by-conservative-group-confirms-global-warming
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I was with you until the end... blaming inaction on laziness and contempt is a little disingenuous. There are a lot of factors supporting the status quo, human nature, political and corporate self-interest, ignorance, etc. I cant accept that anyone truly believes they can make a difference but wont, or that they choose not to because they have no regard for their children. But I otherwise agree in principle. In practice though Ive seen nothing Id consider credible that addresses macro renewable energy production. Sure, put a microhydro plant on the stream by my house, that helps me and maybe 3 other houses. But nothing is going to take 500 coal fired plants offline tomorrow at anything with even a passing nod to cost parity. Except nuclear, and I consider our complete failure to adopt clean safe reactor designs (PBR & IFR) as an indication that we are incapable of collectively acting rationally.
Fred Singer was actually one of those same people denying that smoking caused cancer.
It's the same asshole liars.
.
You better have some damn FUCKING GOOD PROOF of the bad outcomes to justify taking away ANY of anyones freedoms.
You are alluding to a risk management analysis. Do you wait until your house burns down before you decide that insurance would be a good idea?
There is no point talking about *FUCKING GOOD PROOF* (your words) until you have framed the risk you are willing to accept, and how your risk assessment impinged on my FUCKING FREEDOM to have my own risk assessment, for me and my kids.
I bet if global warming screws up your grand-children's lives, you will still blame liberals.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right