Carter, Robert m

=RIP<div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><h3 style="line-height: 1.28205em; margin-top: 1.28205em; margin-bottom: 1.28205em;">Heartland Institute as the Red Team</h3>But before all this, one of America’s most notorious groups pushing climate science denial — the <a href="http://desmogblog.com/heartland-institute" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">Heartland Institute</a> — was touting the “red team” concept.IPCCNIPCCIn Heartland’s first NIPCC report in 2009, the group framed their critique as an innocent and disinterested “Team B.”“It is a time-honored tradition in science to set up a ‘Team B’ which examines the same original evidence but may reach a different conclusion,” the preface mused.In a follow-up 2011 “interim report,” Heartland again touted its credentials as a “Team B,” explaining its formative roots at a meeting in Milan in 2003 organized by <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/s-fred-singer" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">Fred Singer</a> and his <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/science-and-environmental-policy-project" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">Science and Environmental Policy Project</a> (SEPP).But in the following 2013 report — Climate Change Reconsidered II — the language had been tweaked. What was “Team B” was now a “Red Team.”<img alt="" src="https://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/nipcc%20grab3.jpg" style="border: 2px solid; max-width: 100%; height: 41px; width: 332px;" />
Heartland's 2013 NIPCC report used the term “red team.”Long-serving Heartland scientist and NIPCC coordinator, the <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2016/01/22/veteran-climate-science-denialist-bob-carter-dies-heart-attack" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">late Australian Dr. Bob Carter</a>, wrote about the “red team” in a September 2013 column for the Rupert Murdoch–owned tabloid, the <a href="http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/report-gives-the-truth-about-climate-at-last/news-story/0948f8db78dd1fc628543efcd4657a3f" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">Daily Telegraph, based in Sydney</a>.Carter wrote: “In classic Green Team: Red Team tactical management style, the NIPCC has the role of providing an alternative Red Team view of the science of global warming, acting as a sort of 'defense counsel' to verify and counter the arguments mounted for climate alarm by the IPCC's Green Team prosecution.”<h3 style="line-height: 1.28205em; margin-top: 1.28205em; margin-bottom: 1.28205em;">China Crisis</h3>NIPCCBast <a href="https://youtu.be/JZj0L9TEuv0" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">outlined how his institute had identified climate change in the early 90s</a> as “the mother of all environmental scare stories” but then suggested the science was actually a sinister cover for something else entirely.“Groups on the left understand if we can control energy, you can control human beings, and that’s what it was all about,” claimed Bast.Environmentalists were trying to “shut down the engines of the world,” Bast said, without saying why they might want to do any of those things.““NIPCCNIPCCAfter a round of applause, Bast said he hoped “other academies of science,” including Australia, would follow suit, implying the Chinese Academy of Sciences had somehow endorsed the report.At the time of the Chinese version being released, Bast had issued a press release claiming a “historic moment” for global warming science. He sent Heartland staff, including Carter, to Beijing for a press opportunity.But as <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2013/06/18/heartland-institute-keystone-cops-climate-science-denial-strike-again" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">DeSmog reported</a>, the CAS issued a statement saying:  “The claim of the Heartland Institute about CAS’ endorsement of its report is completely false.”Bast was <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150107084434/http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2013/06/14/heartland-institute-statement-chinese-edition-climate-change-reconsider" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">forced to apologize</a> and had to pull the publication from his website and withdraw the original press release. But once Carter was out of China, <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150107032744/http://heartland.org/press-releases/2013/06/11/chinese-academy-sciences-publishes-heartland-institute-research-skeptical-" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">Bast re-issued the press release and rejected the criticisms of the CAS</a>.Oddly, none of this detail made its way into Bast’s opening remarks.<h3 style="line-height: 1.28205em; margin-top: 1.28205em; margin-bottom: 1.28205em;">Fake Discussion</h3></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">=<div>=<a href="https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/fighting-climate-chaos/climate-deniers/koch-industries/dr-willie-soon-a-career-fueled-by-big-oil-and-coal/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/fighting-climate-chaos/climate-deniers/koch-industries/dr-willie-soon-a-career-fueled-by-big-oil-and-coal/</a><h2 id="a8" style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 70px 0px 30px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 32px;">willie Soon plotted to take down the IPCC AR4 before it was even written.</h2>In 2003, as the IPCC was gearing up for the upcoming Fourth Assessment (AR4) due in 2007, Willie Soon began plotting with colleagues about how to undermine the work. As part of the FOIA documents received by Greenpeace, there was a link to Dr. Soon’s documents. That link led to a directory of <a href="https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/_wsoon/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; transition: color 0.2s ease 0s;">Dr. Soon’s files at Harvard</a>. Dr. Soon has also referenced these online files in previous articles published by the Competitive Enterprise Institute. In a <a href="https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/Willie-Soon-email-to-climate-deniers/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; transition: color 0.2s ease 0s;">letter</a> in these files (dated after 10 October) Dr. Soon wrote:<blockquote style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 38px; box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; padding-left: 90px; border-left: 4px solid rgb(239, 239, 239); margin: 80px 0px;">“Clearly they [the AR4 chapters] may be too much for any one of us to tackle them all … But, as A-team, we may for once give it our best shot to try to anticipate and counter some of the chapters, especially WG1—judging from our true expertise in the basic climate sciences …Even if we can tackle ONE single chapter down the road but forcefully and effectively … we will really accomplish A LOT!In all cases, I hope we can start discussing among ourselves to see what we can do to weaken the fourth assessment report or to re-direct  attention back to science …”</blockquote>Who was this “A Team”? The letter was addressed to “Bob, Randy, Walter, Sallie and Dave”.From other correspondence, it seems possible that “Bob” is Australian sceptic Bob Carter, as Dr. Soon worked with Carter. “Sallie” is clearly Dr. Sallie Baliunas, “Dave” is likely David Legates.There is no prominent “A-team” type scientist or climate sceptic called Randy – except ExxonMobil’s lobbyist <a class="zoom" href="http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Randy_Randol" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; transition: color 0.2s ease 0s;">Randy Randol</a>, who was heavily involved with the Exxon-funded deniers. Randol wrote the <a class="zoom" href="http://research.greenpeaceusa.org/?a=view&d=4384" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; transition: color 0.2s ease 0s;">famous memo</a> to the Bush administration recommending that the then head of the IPCC, Bob Watson, be replaced. (Watson was indeed replaced – by the current chair Rajendra Pachauri. But Pachauri has continued the rigorous scientific work carried out by Watson and has since become the target of deniers.)Randol was involved in a number of other Exxon plans to undermine climate science, including a <a class="zoom" href="http://research.greenpeaceusa.org/?a=view&d=4383" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; transition: color 0.2s ease 0s;">plan cooked up in 1998</a> with other Exxon-funded think tanks to attack the Kyoto Protocol (see his name, bottom of page 4).Equally, there is no “Walter” in the climate denial field [cunningham?]– except Walt Buchholtz, ExxonMobil’s Government Relations & Issues Advisor, the man responsible for doling out Exxon’s funding grants to deniers and front groups. Buchholtz was listed as a “Government relations advisor” to the Heartland Institute in 2005 (as listed in the Heartland Institute’s 2005 990 IRS form).Regardless of who these “A Team” members truly were, Willie Soon clearly coordinated a plan to undermine the science chapter of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment – before he even knew what science it contained. This is a clear example of the climate denier strategy of undermining climate science, and stands in sharp contrast with accepted scientific methodology.</div><div></div></div><div>=</div><div>idso carter singer narita noon</div><div>
</div><div>http://www.alternet.org/environment/heartland-institute-peddling-misinformation-teachers-about-climate-change-again</div><div>
</div><div>...What if the information the student shared was not based on the best available evidence? Misinformation would begin to spread more widely. If corrected, the student might distrust the teacher who may have not known the source material was compromised.</div>This scenario is not fiction. It has happened and may still be occurring in some U.S. schools. Anyone concerned about this can learn more with an update forthcoming from those who keep track—the National Center for Science Education (<a href="https://ncse.com/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">NCSE</a>).According to the NCSE, during <a href="https://ncse.com/files/nipcc.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">October 2013 educators received a packet chock full of misinformation</a> about climate change. The report includes an abbreviation that looked similar to a highly respected source—the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—for international climate assessments.It has happened again (starting in March 2017). Many teachers found a packet in their mailbox with a report from the same group that spread the misinformation back in October 2013. This report has a “second edition” gold highlight with a cover image of water flowing over a dam and a misleading title....Not Science” stamp on top of the report cover mailed to teachers during spring 2017. The report misrepresents the fact that nearly all climate scientists agree about human-driven climate change.The report runs counter to the agreement among scientists who publish on climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. More than <a href="http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/meta;jsessionid=CA704F6EEFD42EE913AC9AFC639A0927.c5.iopscience.cld.iop.org" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">97% of scientists agree that climate change is caused by human activities</a>The Heartland Institute is infamous for its rejection of climate science and <a href="https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/04/a-new-tactic-for-climate-skeptics/?r=0" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">unsavory tactics</a>. According to a reported statement by the CEO of Heartland Institute, <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/climate-change-skeptic-group-seeks-to-influence-200000-teachers/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">they plan to keep sending out copies to educators over the weeks ahead</a>.If you see any student or teacher with this report or DVD please let <a href="https://ncse.com/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">NCSE</a> know about it and share what you have learned to help stop the spread.<div wibbitz="embed-main-player" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="bio-new body_environment" style="width: 630px; line-height: 22px; height: auto; border-top: 3px solid rgb(223, 223, 218); clear: both; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="author-bio">Brenda Ekwurzel is a senior climate scientist and the director of climate science at the Union of Concerned Scientists.</div></div><div>=</div>

The 430-page report was coauthored and edited by three climate science researchers: Craig D. Idso, Ph.D., editor of the online magazine CO2 Science and author of several books and scholarly articles on the effects of carbon dioxide on plant and animal life; Robert M. Carter, Ph.D., a marine geologist and research professor at James Cook University in Queensland, Australia; and S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., a distinguished atmospheric physicist and first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service. Seven additional scientists and one policy expert on sustainable growth made contributions to the volume.

===

exxonsecrets

Bob Carter

Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University

-Founding member, chief science advisor, New Zealand Climate Science Coalition-former Director, Australian Secretariat for the Ocean Drilling Program-Contributing Writer, Tech Central Station-founding member, Australian Environment Foundation-Chair of the Earth Sciences Discipline Panel of the Australian Research Council-Chair of the national Marine Science and Technologies Committee-Director of the Australian Office of the Ocean Drilling Program-Co-Chief Scientist on ODP Leg 181 (Southwest Pacific Gateways)-Expert reviewer of the independent Summary for Policymakers

On Bob Carter’s personal webpage, it states that "he receives no research funding from special interest organisations such as environmental groups, energy companies or government departments." The bio goes on to say that Carter strives to provide critical and dispassionate analysis based on facts and knowledge.However, internal budget and strategy documents from the Heartland Institute reveal that he recieves $1,667 from Heartland for his climate denial work.Carter also sits on the research committee of the Institute of Public Affairs, a think tank that has received funding from oil and tobacco companies.

===

11/10  guardian

Lord Lawson's Global Warming Policy Foundation is this afternoon hosting a <a href="http://207.57.117.110/pages/whats-on" title="">public lecture</a> from Prof Bob Carter on "An alternative view of climate hazard – a basis for policy?".

<a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/%7Eglrmc/" title="">Carter, a geologist at James Cook University</a>, is one of the world's most prominent voices of climate change denial and one of the very few who has published his views in academic journals. Two years ago, he had a paper called "Knock knock: where is the evidence for dangerous human-caused global warming?" <a href="http://www.eap-journal.com.au/archive/v38_i2_03_carter.pdf" title="">published in Economic Analysis and Policy</a>, the official journal of the Queensland branch of the Economic Society of Australia.

Carter's paper contains a stunning array of errors, the most serious of which I itemised in <a href="http://www.eap-journal.com.au/archive/v40_i2_02_ward.pdf" title="">an analysis for the same journal</a>. Some of the inaccuracies are laughable. For instance, Carter cites a palaeotemperature reconstruction as evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the late 20th century, even though it only provides temperature data up to 1935. Elsewhere he suggests wrongly that atmospheric carbon dioxide only produces a small warming effect, basing his assertion solely on erroneous calculations posted on a website about "Plant Fossils of West Virginia". And he attributes the warming in the late 20th century to solar activity, but refers to a paper that used inaccurate data about sunspot activity, and which when corrected show no correlation with the recent global average temperature record.

I concluded that Carter's paper was "possibly the most inaccurate and misleading article about climate change that has ever been published by a journal". <a href="http://www.eap-journal.com.au/archive/v40_i2_03_carter.pdf" title="">In his response</a>, rather than explaining or justifying the many flaws in his paper, Carter merely stated that the issues I raised were "weary ones, and have been put to bed by qualified, independent scientists many times".

However, Carter did at least admit that a quotation that he claimed to have taken from a book by Sir John Houghton, the former chair of the science working group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/fabricated-quote-used-to-discredit-climate-scientist-1894552.html" title="">was never said</a>: "Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen." This "quote" was first <a href="http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/sterns-report-scare-mongering/story-e6frezz0-1111112469535" title="">used by a columnist in a rightwing Australian newspaper</a> four years ago, and has been <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/14/benny-peiser-houghton-ipcc-apology" title="">repeated by self-proclaimed climate change "sceptics"</a> many times since. But in February, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/14/benny-peiser-houghton-ipcc-apology" title="">Sir John wrote to the Observer to point out</a>: "The quote from me is without foundation. I have never said it or written it."

However, even in acknowledging the mistake, Carter has still not been able to come completely clean. His grudging erratum in the journal claimed that the quotation he "had in mind to reflect Dr Houghton's views, but failed to identify accurately" was from an <a href="http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/houghton-and-god.pdf" title="">article in the Sunday Telegraph</a> in September 1995: "If we want a good environmental policy in the future we'll have to have a disaster."

Carter's new book, Climate: The Counter Consensus, continues to propagate the mythical quotation, in a Prefatory Essay apparently written in March 2010 by the publisher Tom Stacey. It states that Sir John "had purportedly been overheard passing the word around, 'Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen', and were he to have uttered those words (for he has energetically denied it) they were surely listened to assiduously".

Apart from inserting the disputed quote, Stacey has added some other interesting features to Carter's book which might catch out the unwary reader. The inside front cover claims that Carter "dispassionately assesses whether politicians and campaigners are right to believe the dire warnings of the global warming lobby", but the inside back cover neglects to list among his affiliations a role as "senior policy adviser" at the <a href="http://www.ipa.org.au/people/bob-carter" title="">Institute of Public Affairs</a>, <a href="http://www.ipa.org.au/people/bob-carter">http://www.ipa.org.au/people/bob-carter</a>

an Australian free market lobby group which promotes "the free flow of capital" and "<a href="http://www.ipa.org.au/about" title="">a limited and efficient government</a>".

Carter will no doubt continue to be feted by climate change sceptics because of his academic credentials, but as with many of the other voices of denial, it appears that his views may say more about his politics than the scientific evidence.

• <a href="http://www.lse.ac.uk/grantham" title="">Bob Ward</a> is policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science.

</div>

<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/nov/30/climate-change-sceptic-bob-carter/print">http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/nov/30/climate-change-sceptic-bob-carter/print</a>

=

clive hamilton

Last week's <a href="http://desmogblog.com/heartland-insider-exposes-institute-s-budget-and-strategy">revelations</a> about the Heartland Institute, probably the most important climate science denying organisation in the United States, raise some questions about the murky influence of think tanks on the climate debate in this country.

Confidential documents from the Heartland Institute reveal how wealthy individuals have actively promoted the campaign to attack the credibility of the world's top climate scientists and create the impression that there is a controversy about the main propositions of global warming science.

In fact the bulk of Heartland's climate science denial campaign - which includes plans to promote anti-science in schools - has been funded by one donor, whose name did not appear in the purloined documents.

There is a direct Australian link in the Heartland Institute files. Bob Carter, an adjunct research professor at James Cook University, has a <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/nov/30/climate-change-sceptic-bob-carter">long-standing record</a> of denying climate science. Now it is revealed that he is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, to the tune of $1,667 per month for unspecified work. On his <a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/%7Eglrmc/">personal webpage</a>, Carter declares that "he receives no research funding from special interest organisations such as environmental groups, energy companies or government departments," a claim that on the scale of truth matches his reporting of climate science.

Carter is also a fellow at the right-wing Melbourne think tank, the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), which has for many years been the principal originator of anti-climate science propaganda in this country. The IPA is closely linked to the Heartland Institute, not least through its sponsorship of two of its recent conferences.

The secret funding of the Heartland Institute once again focuses attention on the financing of the IPA and particularly it sustained attacks on climate science and all policies aimed at cutting Australia's greenhouse gas emissions.

The IPA is notoriously secretive about its sources of funding. Its senior staff have refused to answer journalists' questions, although over the years enough information has leaked out to suggest that much of its funding has come from the oil and mining industries, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Public_Affairs">including</a> Exxon, Shell, Caltex and BHP-Billiton.

The IPA's executive director John Roskam, who used to work for Rio Tinto, <a href="http://stage.fw.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/general/bid-to-force-thinktank-to-declare-backers/2434521.aspx">has said</a> that donors to the Institute want to remain anonymous because they "have been intimidated because of their supposed support for us".

The IPA's coyness is all the more hypocritical because a few years ago it launched a sustained attack on NGOs by claiming they were unaccountable, unrepresentative and not worthy of charitable status. The demand for transparency applies to everyone but itself.

Despite its refusal to divulge, we can make a good guess at where a large part of its recent funding has come from - right-wing mining billionaire Gina Rinehart.

In August 2010 the Institute's magazine carried a <a href="http://www.ipa.org.au/sectors/deregulation-unit/publication/1852/unleash-the-north">prominent article</a> by one of its staff titled "Unleash the North". It advocated the creation of a special economic zone to cover the northern half of the continent where companies would have lower levels of regulation, cheap labour could be imported from developing countries and tax rates would be cut.

This proposal exactly parallels Gina Rinehart's campaign for a special economic zone in northern Australia where companies like hers could enjoy special privileges. She has set up a lobby group called Australians for Northern Development and Economic Vision (<a href="http://www.andev-project.org/">ANDEV</a>) to promote the idea.

Within months the Institute had established a new ‘North Australia Project', with its own <a href="http://anewnorth.ipa.org.au/2011/05/hello-world/">website</a>, and from May 2011 began churning out media releases promoting the special economic zone, beginning with a "landmark Galaxy poll" that purported to show that 60 per cent of Australians "think Canberra is out of touch with Northern Australia".

(In a move that shows polling groups will pose the most absurd questions if paid enough to do so, Galaxy asked whether "in your opinion, do decision makers in Canberra understand the needs of families and businesses living in Northern Australia?" as if the average punter is au faitwith the needs of families and businesses in semi-tropical Australia and equally well-informed what "Canberra" thinks about it.)

The new director of the North Australia Project, Hugh Tobin, declared:

The government should put in place a Special Economic Zone in Northern Australia. A low tax, low regulation zone would drive continued long term investment in the Australian resource industry.

</blockquote>

John Roskam also began <a href="http://anewnorth.ipa.org.au/2011/06/ideas-for-a-new-north-weekly-email/">spruiking</a> the marvels of Rinehart's northern zone.

Subsequent media releases warned of an out-of-touch Canberra, the danger of falling iron ore prices, the fragility of the resources boom, skills shortages, and the need to cut taxes and simplify regulation. They call for a "business friendly", "low tax, low regulation Special Economic Zone". The IPA's outpourings have been reproduced in mining industry magazines and will undoubtedly soon be echoed by right-wing newspaper columnists.

If the words in the media releases were not dictated down the phone by Gina Rinehart, then they could have been. I would be willing to bet $1,000 that she is now a major funder of the Institute of Public Affairs. In fact, the IPA has admitted that it is "working with Australians for Northern Development and Economic Vision", Rinehart's lobby group.

In June 2011 <a href="http://anewnorth.ipa.org.au/2011/06/landmark-poll-on-australias-centralised-government/">the IPA said</a> it was conducting a series of seminars throughout Northern Australia to "build the case for, and gather input into the establishment of a Northern SEZ". It has taken Bob Carter to Weipa, Kunanurra, Darwin, Broome, Mount Isa and several more towns.

Clearly, like its long-running involvement in the climate debate, the IPA is conducting a political campaign, which brings us directly to the question of whether the Institute is abiding by the laws under which it operates as a deductible gift recipient.

In 1987 the IPA restructured itself as a company limited by guarantee, which means that its directors are not liable for any debts it might incur. The restructure enabled it to apply to become an Approved Research Institute (ARI) and thus be eligible for endorsement as a deductible gift recipient (DGR). In other words, donors to the Institute would be able to claim a tax deduction for their donations. DGR status is the most valuable asset of an organisation like the IPA because without it virtually no-one would donate.

In order for the IPA to become a DGR it had to apply to the Secretary of what is now the Federal Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research giving various undertakings.

Most importantly, it had to undertake to use all tax-deductible donations exclusively for scientific research, <a href="http://www.ato.gov.au/content/00236763.htm">more particularly</a>, "scientific research which is, or may prove to be, of value to Australia". In this context, the authorities have ruled that "scientific research" includes social scientific research.

The IPA also had to undertake to create a separate bank account into which all tax-deductible gifts must be deposited. The Institute's financial statements show that it keeps some of its cash in an account called "NAB Research Account". On June 30, 2010 it held $385,647.

It must also ensure that all disbursements from this research account are evaluated and approved by "a suitably qualified research committee" of at least five members, the majority of whom are appropriately qualified in the field of research that is to be undertaken or have appropriate experience in reviewing research, and who should be nominated on the basis of their "proven ability to direct a research program". As far as I can tell, the IPA has not made public the membership of its research committee.

The rules state explicitly that tax-deductible funds may not be used for "the organisation of conferences, congresses and symposia and the publication of information (other than the results of the ARI's own research work, undertaken through this program)."

All of this raises the question of whether donations to the IPA for which the donor has claimed a tax deduction are being used in compliance with the law.

The IPA has devoted considerable resources to staging public meetings to campaign against the Federal Government's carbon tax. In the year to June 30, 2010 it hosted 40 events around the country. This is clearly a political campaign; in no sense could these activities be called scientific research. So were the public meetings funded from tax deductible gifts? Did the Institute's research committee approve spending on these events? It may well be that they were funded from other sources, but we can't tell because of the IPA's lack of disclosure.

Similar questions can be asked about the series of seminars the IPA is conducting in northern Australia to build support for a special economic zone. It would be hard to defend these activities as "scientific research". The funds, it would seem, are being spent on "the organisation of conferences, congresses and symposia" on which tax-deductible gifts may not be spent.

Last year the IPA paid for two full-page advertisements in the Australian attacking the Government's climate change policy. The cost would have been in the order of $100,000. Who paid for them? Were they paid for with tax deductible gifts?

While we cannot be sure why the IPA refuses to come clean about its sources of funds, or what those sources are, if it were to be revealed that they included the mining industry or mining magnates then journalists would be obliged to report the fact each time they wrote a story about the IPA. The environment groups that the IPA has attacked for lack of accountability are transparent about their funding, yet the IPA knows that its credibility would be shot if it were seen to be the mouthpiece of big business with an interest in undermining climate science and climate policy.

The public may not have the means to shed light on the murky world of IPA finances, but the Tax Commissioner does. He should open up the Institute's books to ensure it is complying with the law and to force on the IPA the transparency it demands of others.

Clive Hamilton is Professor of Public Ethics at Charles Sturt University in Canberra. He was formerly the executive director of the Australia Institute, which he founded in 1994. View his full profile <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/clive-hamilton-27800.html" target="_self" title="">here</a>.

<a href="http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3849006.html">http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3849006.html</a>

</div>