Leaked: Conservative Group Plans Anti-Climate

[Von Bismarck]

Leaked documents from the free-market conservative organization The Heartland Institute reveal a plan to create school educational materials that contradict the established science on climate change.

The documents, leaked by an anonymous donor and released on DeSmogBlog, include the organization's 2012 fundraising plan. It lists Heartland Institute donors, from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation (established by Koch Industries billionaire Charles G. Koch), to Philip Morris parent company Altria, to software giant Microsoft and pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly.

The climate change education project is funded so far by an anonymous donor who has given $13 million to the Institute over the past five years. Proposed by policy analyst David Wojick, who holds a doctorate in epistemology and has worked for coal and electricity generation companies, the project would create education "modules" written to meet curriculum guidelines for every grade level.

"Many people lament the absence of educational material suitable for K-12 students on global warming that isn't alarmist or overtly political," the report reads. "Heartland has tried to make material available to teachers, but has had only limited success."

Update, 4:55 pm ET: The Heartland Institute released a statement this afternoon calling the document leaks "criminal" and claiming that one of the documents, which purports to be the organization's climate change strategy, is faked. However, blogger Anthony Watts and geologist Robert Carter have confirmed online and to news organizations that they have been paid or pledged money by the Institute as outlined in the documents. James M. Taylor, a senior fellow at the Heartland Institute, confirmed to ThinkProgress Green that the school educational project is ongoing.

Leaked: Conservative Group Plans Anti-Climate Education Program

Edited February 16, 2012 by BFB

[Little Fish]

that article implies that anthony watts is paid by the heartland institut, which is false. it is clear however the purpose of this article (as is evident in the way it is written) is to smear him and his work by constructing some type of unfounded conspiracy theory. they have pledged 88,000 for a one time project to develop a website to give public access to noaa's temperature data. reread the bolded bit in the OP and you'll see the underhandness in the writing.

makes one wonder why they feel the need to do this, actually thinking about it, it doesn't.

[Von Bismarck]

that article implies that anthony watts is paid by the heartland institut, which is false. it is clear however the purpose of this article (as is evident in the way it is written) is to smear him and his work by constructing some type of unfounded conspiracy theory. they have pledged 88,000 for a one time project to develop a website to give public access to noaa's temperature data. reread the bolded bit in the OP and you'll see the underhandness in the writing.

makes one wonder why they feel the need to do this, actually thinking about it, it doesn't.

It really doesn't matter. The fact that the heartland institut wants Dr. David E. Wojick to educate children in climate science is a disgrace. Would you want your children to be educated in math by a tesco service assistant?

This hole thing is a disgrace, I have lost a lot of respect for the heartland institut because of this scandal.

Its funny that after all the heartland institut is one of the organizations that most aggressively pushed the climategate controversy. And now they can't believe people would belive in this "fraud". Why does the heartland institut so badly want to imprison the person who leaked this, buts its not alright to imprison the people behinde the climategate scandal?

[Little Fish]

It really doesn't matter. The fact that the heartland institut wants Dr. David E. Wojick to educate children in climate science is a disgrace. Would you want your children to be educated in math by a tesco service assistant?

This hole thing is a disgrace, I have lost a lot of respect for the heartland institut because of this scandal.

Its funny that after all the heartland institut is one of the organizations that most aggressively pushed the climategate controversy. And now they can't believe people would belive in this "fraud". Why does the heartland institut so badly want to imprison the person who leaked this, buts its not alright to imprison the people behinde the climategate scandal?

I don't know enough about this Wojick/production of educational materials to know what the facts are and who said what etc, but as long as kids are being taught facts I don't see a problem. I do see a problem in that children are being indoctrinated and brainwashed in schools to believe in CAGW. if this addresses that balance and allows teachers to get access to all the facts then again, i see no problem. I don't know what it is like in your country but education in many countries these days comes from government, teachers are more and more restricted in what they can teach, and government agendas have influenced the curriculum.

from what you say above, there is a substantive difference between this and climategate. the heartland institute is a private organisation funded with private money and assures anonymity to donors, any documents taken without permission is criminal theft. the climategate material is publicly funded and subject to FOIA, those involved in climategate broke the law in refusing to publicly release material which was funded and ownered by the taxpayer. you are implying hypocrisy where none exists. so "disgrace" and "scandal" - I don't see it.

[Von Bismarck]

I don't know enough about this Wojick/production of educational materials to know what the facts are and who said what etc, but as long as kids are being taught facts I don't see a problem.

David Wojick wont be teaching facts because he disagrees with the most facts we know about our climate. He doesn't even have an education in science so how would he ever be able to know what's right and wrong?

I do see a problem in that children are being indoctrinated and brainwashed in schools to believe in CAGW. if this addresses that balance and allows teachers to get access to all the facts then again, i see no problem.

As long as its chlidren we are talking about, we should not start to confuse them. We should teach them what the majority of scientists believe.

If it were at a college and university level i completely agree but not as long as its just children they should be learning what the majority think is true.

I don't know what it is like in your country but education in many countries these days comes from government, teachers are more and more restricted in what they can teach, and government agendas have influenced the curriculum.

In the last couple of years this have also been the case for the country i live in.

from what you say above, there is a substantive difference between this and climategate. the heartland institute is a private organisation funded with private money and assures anonymity to donors, any documents taken without permission is criminal theft. the climategate material is publicly funded and subject to FOIA, those involved in climategate broke the law in refusing to publicly release material which was funded and ownered by the taxpayer. you are implying hypocrisy where none exists. so "disgrace" and "scandal" - I don't see it.

So you wouldn't call it double standards? So "hackers" are allowed to do what ever they want if it fit ones own agenda?

[Little Fish]

David Wojick wont be teaching facts because he disagrees with the most facts we know about our climate. He doesn't even have an education in science so how would he ever be able to know what's right and wrong?

isn't it up to the teachers to use materials they see fit to teach what they have been told to teach. if this wojick is just providing materials, then he is not teaching, merely providing resources. so its too strong to say "wojick teaching", although i have to look into it more to know what the fuss is about.

As long as its chlidren we are talking about, we should not start to confuse them. We should teach them what the majority of scientists believe. If it were at a college and university level i completely agree but not as long as its just children they should be learning what the majority think is true.

we should be teaching kids facts if it's science we are talking about. we should not be teaching them propaganda whichever camp that may come out of. I have not seen any evidence of Wojick providing propaganda. I have seen plenty of warmist propaganda being taught to our kids over the past 20 years.

So you wouldn't call it double standards? So "hackers" are allowed to do what ever they want if it fit ones own agenda?

Are you aware that in the UK the police kicked down the door of climate blogger "Tallbloke", confiscated his property, arrested and detained him under the false presumption that he was the one who "hacked" the climategate emails, so clearly you are incorrect in thinking that "hackers are allowed to do whatever they want". the release of the climategate emails was what the FOIA law required. I personally do not see how a lawful action (release under FOIA) can be viewed as heinous action. the illegal action was the blocking of lawful FOIA requests, it is those illegal blocking misdeeds that have gone unpunished when we even know who the guilty are.

the distinction between public and private is very clear, it is just the way it is. the climategate emails should have been released under law. there is no law that says the same of a private organisation. furthermore there is no evidence the climategate emails were "hacked", there is every possibility the emails were released from an inside whistle-blower who saw the illegality of blocking FOIA inside the climategate community. the theft of these heartland documents simply looks like an attempt to muddy the waters over the climategate revelations. if you take a look at the comments on watts blog on this issue you'll see the zealous and despicable nature of some of these greenies, who seem to be foaming at the mouth over this.

btw, the main Heartland "document" I understand is a fake which suggests whoever is behind this is not seeking the truth.

...to the pertinent point - where is the scandal??

I just don't see it. This is just an unfounded political smear campaign to divert attention away from the the scandalous climategate emails.

Edited February 17, 2012 by Little Fish

[ninjadude]

we should be teaching kids facts if it's science we are talking about. we should not be teaching them propaganda whichever camp that may come out of.

You really don't know how science works do you? Facts in and of themselves are pretty uninteresting. THEORIES give us the best current explanation of facts. (What you call propaganda).

[+and-then]

I had an open mind about climate change until it became obvious to me that it was just another scam to raise taxes. It's all about the money. If it IS real then humanity will deal with the problem as it's biting us on the backside. It's how we do everything.

[Little Fish]

You really don't know how science works do you? Facts in and of themselves are pretty uninteresting. THEORIES give us the best current explanation of facts. (What you call propaganda).

a scientific theory has to be based on empirical facts and measurements.

when kids are taught using fear and emotive issues such as skin cancer increasing, polar bears dying, droughts and famine, then it is not science, it is brainwashing propaganda to install a belief, and its dangerous because belief often overrides thinking, just as your belief that I "call scientific theories propaganda" overrides your thinking.

[Von Bismarck]

isn't it up to the teachers to use materials they see fit to teach what they have been told to teach. if this wojick is just providing materials, then he is not teaching, merely providing resources. so its too strong to say "wojick teaching", although i have to look into it more to know what the fuss is about.

The problem is the teachers. The teachers wouldn't know what is science and what is fiction.

we should be teaching kids facts if it's science we are talking about. we should not be teaching them propaganda whichever camp that may come out of. I have not seen any evidence of Wojick providing propaganda. I have seen plenty of warmist propaganda being taught to our kids over the past 20 years.

?? Basically everything Wojick is providing dosn't hold. Its "sciencefiction"

Are you aware that in the UK the police kicked down the door of climate blogger "Tallbloke", confiscated his property, arrested and detained him under the false presumption that he was the one who "hacked" the climategate emails, so clearly you are incorrect in thinking that "hackers are allowed to do whatever they want". the release of the climategate emails was what the FOIA law required. I personally do not see how a lawful action (release under FOIA) can be viewed as heinous action. the illegal action was the blocking of lawful FOIA requests, it is those illegal blocking misdeeds that have gone unpunished when we even know who the guilty are.

the distinction between public and private is very clear, it is just the way it is. the climategate emails should have been released under law. there is no law that says the same of a private organisation. furthermore there is no evidence the climategate emails were "hacked", there is every possibility the emails were released from an inside whistle-blower who saw the illegality of blocking FOIA inside the climategate community. the theft of these heartland documents simply looks like an attempt to muddy the waters over the climategate revelations. if you take a look at the comments on watts blog on this issue you'll see the zealous and despicable nature of some of these greenies, who seem to be foaming at the mouth over this.

btw, the main Heartland "document" I understand is a fake which suggests whoever is behind this is not seeking the truth.

...to the pertinent point - where is the scandal??

I just don't see it. This is just an unfounded political smear campaign to divert attention away from the the scandalous climategate emails.

You got my attention after reading some of the comments on whatts blog. But i stil have the opinion that this case is very similar to climategate.

This case is an attack on climate skeptics. Some(not all - actually its only one) fake documents are being produced by the alarmist camp. - a very weak case

Climategate was an attack on AGW theorists. The climate skeptics released e-mails taken out of context. - a very weak case

The above is exactly what is wrong with climatescience.

Edited February 18, 2012 by BFB

[Little Fish]

The problem is the teachers. The teachers wouldn't know what is science and what is fiction.

I agree to an extent, but the curriculum is there to guide them. as long as teaching children is about developing their thinking skills and not indoctrination then I don't see a problem.

?? Basically everything Wojick is providing dosn't hold. Its "sciencefiction"

I don't know anything about that. what I do know is that al gores movie is propaganda and that is being used to teach kids, as well as other pro warmist propaganda which i know is being used in schools and has been for over 20 years.

You got my attention after reading some of the comments on whatts blog. But i stil have the opinion that this case is very similar to climategate.

I do not see an equivalence.

This case is an attack on climate skeptics. Some(not all - actually its only one) fake documents are being produced by the alarmist camp. - a very weak case

Climategate was an attack on AGW theorists. The climate skeptics released e-mails taken out of context. - a very weak case

I disagree here.

their defence was that the emails were taken out of context which was not true. take the "a trick to hide the decline" for example. their defence was that the word "trick" was taken out of context. actually the operative word is "hide" not "trick". so we see their defence as misdirection.

here's some of the things we learned from climategate:

1. the climategate team were illegally blocking FOIA

2. The climategate team were refusing to share the data, methods, algorithms to enable independent reproducible scrutiny.

3. the climategate team were interfering with journals and threatening to blacklist journals in order to suppress contrary research. the correct way forward with a scientific disagreement is to publish a letter response in the journal to show their disagreement, not to intimidate opposing views.

4. The climategate team were taking steps to destroy the careers of those with opposing views, pressuring institutions to take actions against fellow scientists who disagreed, that's disgraceful.

5. the climategate team were nominating each other for awards.

6. The climategate team were fighting "the cause".

in summary they were controlling the "consensus" view in the direction they wanted which is in opposition to science, coupled with the fact the team were heavy contributers to the ipcc and used similar political methods resulted in a extremely biased representation of what the science said. here is a good analysis of the emails if you have the time to read it, it covers a lot more than I listed above.

http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/

I see nothing like the above in the heartland documents. the focus seems to be on funding which boils down to an ad hominem attack. the insinuation is that the "big oil" is paying the skeptic camp scientists to produce fake science. there is no evidence of that, and since that unfounded insinuation can apply to both sides and even more so to the warmist camp since there is so much more money available to them a few million versus hundreds of billions, therefore the funding argument is an illogical political smear.

I see no equivalence.

[Doug1029]

that article implies that anthony watts is paid by the heartland institut, which is false. it is clear however the purpose of this article (as is evident in the way it is written) is to smear him and his work by constructing some type of unfounded conspiracy theory. they have pledged 88,000 for a one time project to develop a website to give public access to noaa's temperature data. reread the bolded bit in the OP and you'll see the underhandness in the writing.

makes one wonder why they feel the need to do this, actually thinking about it, it doesn't.

Anthony Watts doesn't need anybody to smear him and his work - he is doing a good job of that without any help.

The public already has access to NOAA's temperature/climate data. I have posted several references to NOAA's data on UM. I admit that their website is confusing and there is a huge amount of data - just sorting through it to find what you want can be a monumental undertaking. But it's there for those with the ambition to look it up.

Doug

[Little Fish]

Anthony Watts doesn't need anybody to smear him and his work - he is doing a good job of that without any help.

why such a hate on for anthony watts. what you say above is not true. are you aware that his work and time has been self funded, voluntary and free to the public. that is why the green cultists hate him - because they cannot smear him by insinuating he is in the pocket of big oil or something like that. are you aware that his work has forced NOAA to acknowledge recording and siting errors and re-evaluate its temperature station data. he is a shining example of an independent citizen scientist and deserves our respect, but who do the medals go to? read climategate and find out - "you nominate me for this award and I'll nominate you for that award"

The public already has access to NOAA's temperature/climate data. I have posted several references to NOAA's data on UM. I admit that their website is confusing and there is a huge amount of data - just sorting through it to find what you want can be a monumental undertaking. But it's there for those with the ambition to look it up.

Doug

nobody said it was not there. what watts is going to do is present a real time front end website to display the data and provide comparison charts for stations. a user friendly graphical interface, it will be FREE to the public and easy to use, why don't you appreciate that? the cost is estimated at $88,000 to employ programmers and buy equipment. the heartland has pledged $44,000, the rest he is trying to raise from other donations. there is no intentions to take a salary for himself from this, it is just the cost of the project. now do you still hate him? this work should have been done by NOAA, their budget is way bigger and that money is a drop in their ocean. you'd know all this if you looked at his blog, don't be like cornelius, why don't you pay his blog a visit and join the commenters, you might learn something and might be able to contribute something.

[Doug1029]

why such a hate on for anthony watts. what you say above is not true.

A few months ago (December?) I wrote a rebuttal to two of your posts in which Anthony Watts was whining about dendrochronologists not listing their eqations. One he specifically complained about not knowing was the standardization formula. It is hard to imagine a "scientist" who is not familiar with this basic statistical process. Anybody who works with data can recite it from memory and it is in every statistics textbook I have ever seen. If Anthony Watts REALLY doesn't know it, it is easy to look up.

He also complained about a paper not listing some other equations. I checked: the names were there; "Hugershoff model," "negative logarythm," "seven-year cubic spline," etc. Does your "scientist" not recognize that these are the very equations he is complaining about not being there?

Mr. Watts' own comments have discredited him far better than I ever could.

Doug

[Little Fish]

as I said, go to his blog and tell him what you think, you'll probably get a reply. maybe you don't understand the issue accurately, maybe he was misrepresented. maybe its more complicated than you think.

[ninjadude]

I had an open mind about climate change until it became obvious to me that it was just another scam to raise taxes.

The scientific theory of climate change and the political response to it are two very different things. You are conflating the two.

[ninjadude]

I agree to an extent, but the curriculum is there to guide them. as long as teaching children is about developing their thinking skills and not indoctrination then I don't see a problem.

One of the purposes of education IS indoctrination of what a society values. That includes the currently accepted best theories.

[Little Fish]

One of the purposes of education IS indoctrination of what a society values. That includes the currently accepted best theories.

do i really need to clarify?

indoctrinate

to teach (a person or group of people) systematically to accept doctrines, esp uncritically

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/indoctrinate

brainwash - persuade completely, often through coercion; "The propaganda brainwashed many people"

persuade - cause somebody to adopt a certain position, belief, or course of action;

brainwash - submit to brainwashing; indoctrinate forcibly

indoctrinate - teach doctrines to; teach uncritically; "The Moonies indoctrinate their disciples"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/brainwash

[Little Fish]

"What the Heartland documents show is how badly warmists have been beaten by those with a fraction of the resources they’ve enjoyed.

Al Gore spent $300 million advertising the global warming hoax. Greenpeace, the WWF, the Sierra Club, The Natural Resources Defense Council, NASA, NOAA, the UN and nation states have collectively poured billions into climate research, alternative energies and propaganda, supported along the way by most of the broadcast and print media.

Yet they’ve been thwarted by a few honest scientists, a number of blogs and a small pile of cash from Heartland.

Here’s a clue for DeSmog, Joe Romm and other warmists enjoying a little schadenfreude today. It’s not the money that’s beating you, it’s the message.

Your climate fear-mongering backfired. You cried wolf so often the villagers stopped listening. Then Climategate I & II gave the world a peek behind the curtain into the shady practices, petty-feuding and data-manipulation that seems to pass for routine in climate ‘science’.

So enjoy the moment, warmists, because what this episode really demonstrates to the world is how little money was needed to bring the greatest scam in history to its knees. That’s not something I’d think you’d want to advertise, but knock yourselves out. It’s what you do best."

http://dailybayonet.com/2012/02/hippies-hate-heartland/

[Doug1029]

as I said, go to his blog and tell him what you think, you'll probably get a reply. maybe you don't understand the issue accurately, maybe he was misrepresented. maybe its more complicated than you think.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/message-to-anthony-watts/

Anthony Watts does not accept criticism. See the post by "Semafor." I am not the first to note Watts' "mathematical ineptitude."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts#Credentials_held

Watts has no scientific credentials. He is not a scientist of any kind, let alone a climatologist. He is a paid contractor for the Heartland Institute - an anti-global warming propaganda site, bought and paid for by the Petroleum Institute. Aa a propaganda site, it does not even try to be accurate - its purpose is to mislead, not to educate.

He held the AMS Seal of Approval until it was discontinued (It did not even require a bachelor's degree in meteorology.). That's the sum total of Watts' qualifications.

Doug

Edited February 19, 2012 by Doug1029

[Little Fish]

He is a paid contractor for the Heartland Institute

where if your evidence for that?

[Doug1029]

More on the Heartland Institute from the July 2011 issue of "Nature":

"Despite criticizing climate scientists for being overconfident about their data, models and theories, the Heartland Institute proclaims a conspicuous confidence in single studies and grand interpretations....makes many bold assertions that are often questionable or misleading.... Many climate sceptics seem to review scientific data and studies not as scientists but as attorneys, magnifying doubts and treating incomplete explanations as falsehoods rather than signs of progress towards the truth. ... The Heartland Institute and its ilk are not trying to build a theory of anything. They have set the bar much lower, and are happy muddying the waters."

BTW: The Heartland Institute also questions the health hazards of second-hand smoke.

All that being said, they published a booklet reviewing a survey of scientists on the subject of global warming. This was back about 2003. I have used their booklet as a source. Though now out-of-date, it had some good ideas.

And more about Heartland from SourceWatch:

The Heartland Institute is a member of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) as of 2010-2011.[2] It is a member of ALEC's Telecommunications and Information Technology Task Force,[3] Education Task Force,[4] Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force Financial Services Subcommittee[5] and Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force.[6] James Taylor, managing editor of the Heartland publication Environment & Climate News, spoke at the Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force meeting at the 2011 ALEC Annual Meeting.[6] Heartland was also an Exhibitor at ALEC's 2011 Annual Meeting.[7] Heartland has also functioned as a publisher and promoter of ALEC's model legislation.[8]

ALEC is not a lobby; it is not a front group. It is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, behind closed doors, corporations hand state legislators the changes to the law they desire that directly benefit their bottom line. Along with legislators, corporations have membership in ALEC. Corporations sit on all nine ALEC task forces and vote with legislators to approve “model” bills. They have their own corporate governing board which meets jointly with the legislative board. (ALEC says that corporations do not vote on the board.) They fund almost all of ALEC's operations. Participating legislators, overwhelmingly conservative Republicans, then bring those proposals home and introduce them in statehouses across the land as their own brilliant ideas and important public policy innovations—without disclosing that corporations crafted and voted on the bills. ALEC boasts that it has over 1,000 of these bills introduced by legislative members every year, with one in every five of them enacted into law. ALEC describes itself as a “unique,” “unparalleled” and “unmatched” organization. It might be right. It is as if a state legislature had been reconstituted, yet corporations had pushed the people out the door. Learn more at ALECexposed.org.

And now they're funding Anthony Watts.

Doug

[Doug1029]

where if your evidence for that?

http://wottsupwiththat.com/

From: http://www.livescience.com/18496-leaked-heartland-documents-climate-change.html

"Update, 4:55 pm ET: The Heartland Institute released a statement this afternoon calling the document leaks "criminal" and claiming that one of the documents, which purports to be the organization's climate change strategy, is faked. However, blogger Anthony Watts and geologist Robert Carter have confirmed online and to news organizations that they have been paid or pledged money by the Institute as outlined in the documents."

Doug

Edited February 19, 2012 by Doug1029

[Little Fish]

http://wottsupwiththat.com/

From: http://www.livescience.com/18496-leaked-heartland-documents-climate-change.html

"Update, 4:55 pm ET: The Heartland Institute released a statement this afternoon calling the document leaks "criminal" and claiming that one of the documents, which purports to be the organization's climate change strategy, is faked. However, blogger Anthony Watts and geologist Robert Carter have confirmed online and to news organizations that they have been paid or pledged money by the Institute as outlined in the documents."

Doug

lies and smears.

did you read post #2 on this thread?

[Little Fish]

doug, do you twist and lie with your science according to your paymaster's wishes? you see the point here don't you?

this whole charade is just a morale booster and an appeal to the faithful hippies, since they are the ones that believe that oil is evil. ordinary people don't give a hoot.

is THIS the "scandal"- that heartland have PLEDGED $44,000 towards a future project watts wants to do to make NOAAs data accessible to the public free of charge, a project requiring employing expensive programmers and servers.

its a bit pathetic isn't it?