ICCC/Heartland

===

SEE 1ST/MAIN NODE HEARTLAND,

ALSO ICCC2 also hrtland tag

note: quite a lot of duplication below

i think 2015 conf is not here so much as with indiv perps

except:

===

===

aha see ggl doc (in)action-reaction

denial BS propaganda PR heats up when int'l treaty or US bill proposed:

mashey 2012 has lots on heartland

G.3 Climate outreach, elected officials

In last few years, Heartland has moved more strongly into climate anti-science.

Heartland’s current donation page includes:260

IRS-0E, IRS-5L

“Communicates frequently with every state and national elected official,

sending them a publication about every five days and fulfilling thousands of

information requests.

Heartland has recently run (relatively lavish) climate anti-science

conferences, called International Conferences on Climate Change.

261 They

are shown chronologically with the various legislative bills 262 and a few

related Heartland publications.

10/18/07 Lieberman-Warner Climate Security ActS.2191 introduced

12/05/07 Lieberman-Warner passed in Senate EPW committee

03/02/08 Heart#1 –ICCC-1 - New York, -03/04/08

06/06/08 Republicans filibuster Lieberman-Warner

03/08/09 Heart#2 –ICCC-2 -New York, -03/10/09 [6 Barton staffers]

05/15/09 Waxman-Markey introduced, 05/15/09

06/02/09 Heart#3 –ICCC-3 -Washington, DC

06/26/09 Waxman-Markey H.R. 2454263 passed in House, sent to Senate

07/23/09 Legislator’s Guide to Global Warming Experts (G.4)

08/xx/09 Environment and Climate News, Waxman-Markey front page

Z.2009.08-1. Page 2 exhorted E&CN readers to act.

09/30/09 Kerry-BoxerS.1733 introduced264 in Senate

05/12/10Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act introduced in Senate

05/16/10 Heart#4 –ICCC-4 - Chicago, IL -05/18/10 [4 staffers]

10/01/10 Heart#5 - ICCC-5 - Sydney, Australia

06/30/11 Heart#6 - ICCC-6 - Washington, DC -07/01/11

No climate bills were passed, but the history gives context for Heartland’s

big boost in climate PR activities targeted to legislators.

260 heartland.org/donate

261 www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2454

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Clean_Energy_and_Security_Act

262 www.govtrackinsider.com/articles/2010-04-27/climate-change has chronology.

263 MAS2010 p.85 lists Heart#1 – Heart#4. Heartland’s nomenclature changed.

climateconference.heartland.org

264 www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-1733

---

===

http://www.alternet.org/environment/gop-congressman-lamar-smith-declares-war-nasa-and-epa-climate-science-research

LAMAR Smith, a Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives, has declared war on the Obama administration, NASA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to undermine attempts to prevent dangerous climate change.

Speaking at the Heartland Institute’s climate denier conference in Washington, D.C., last Thursday, the Texas congressman described how three subpoenas for EPA staff emails and texts have now been issued following claims about “secret emails” and personal use of email accounts by the agency.

This follows a similar-spirited freedom of information request submitted to the EPA by Chris Horner, a senior legal fellow for the Energy and Environment Legal Institute supported by the ExxonMobil funded Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Smith, chairman of the science, space and technology committee said at the conference that “regulation should be based on sound science not science fiction.”

“The science is clear and overwhelming but not in the way the President says. The fact is there is little evidence that climate change causes extreme weather events.”

Clean Power Plan

Smith’s speech comes only two days after a federal court dismissed a lawsuit by the nation’s largest coal companies and 14 coal-producing states that sought to block President Obama’s clamp-down on power plant emissions.

“The president’s power plan is nothing more than a power play. It will give the government more control over Americans’ daily lives. These regulations stifle economic growth, destroy jobs and increase energy prices,” said Smith.

He continued: “The EPA justify their dictatorial approach by claiming regulations will slow global climate change and reduce carbon emissions. But heavy handed regulation and arbitrary emission targets will do lasting damage to our economy all for little environment impact.”

In an effort to counter the EPA’s “most aggressive regulatory agenda in its 40 year history,” Smith’s Secret Science Reform Act was passed by the House in March to prohibit the EPA form implementing a regulation unless it makes public all related data, scientific analyses and materials.

Smith argues the bill will increase transparency and stop the EPA using “hidden and flawed” science. However, 40 scientific institutions and universities have now opposed the bill arguing it will severely hamper the EPA form carrying out its mission to protect public health and the environment.

Lord Monckton praised Smith’s speech as “the best informed, most passionate and splendid speeches on climate I have every heard from any politician.”

Monckton joined Smith in his attack on science in calling for a Congressional investigation into the conduct of the Smithsonian and Harvard University in their treatment of Willie Soon, who failed to disclose conflicts of interest in his research funded by ExxonMobil.

Cut Off the Money

In response to audience calls to“cut off the money” from climate change research Smith highlighted the fact that NASA’s budget on earth science was cut by 40 percent just last week. This was met with cheers and applause from the room.

He added: “The second cut we made that you will appreciate [is to the] National Science Foundation, [which] we also have jurisdiction for, we reset [its] priorities, which we are entitled to do.

“We moved a lot of money out of the social science into the hard sciences that typically bear results. We’re trying to get the NSF out of the business of awarding grants such as $1,260,000 (£800,000) for someone to write an off-broadway musical on climate change.”

Heartland Activists

Earlier in the day, the conference was kicked-off by Senator James Inhofe, who now chairs the Senate environment and public works committee despite calling global warming “the greatest hoax every perpetrated on the American people.”

Inhofe urged Heartland activists to go out and fight against what he called “the myth of global warming.”

“If you look at the Republican [Presidential] candidates, they’re all denying this stuff,” Inhofe said. “They’re all with people in this room.”

He continued: “This is where you guys come in now, you’re all activists, I really mean that.”

Inhofe, whose message was that “God is still up there”, later told reports that the Pope Francis should butt out of climate change: “The pope ought to stay with his job, and we’ll stay with ours.”

He concluded his speech with a call to arms: “We’ve got a country we’ve got to save, and we’ve got to do it together. If you join us, if we do this as a team, we’ll be doing the Lord’s work and he will richly bless you for it. Amen.”

===

AWARD

2019

• Timothy Ball
• Jay Lehr
• Richard S. Lindzen
• Patrick Michaels

2015 WINNERS

Robert Carter

Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, and marine geologist with a 50-year record of university teaching and publishing international research on ancient environmental and climatic change topics.

ICC-10-winners-carter

William Happer

William Happer, Ph.D. is a physicist who has specialized in the interaction of atoms and nuclei with radiation. He is the Cyrus Fogg Brackett professor of physics (emeritus) at Princeton University and a long-term member of the JASON advisory group, where he pioneered the development of adaptive optics and invented the sodium guide star to eliminate astronomical imaging blurring due to atmospheric turbulence.

ICC-10-winners-happer

James Inhofe

U.S. Sen. James Inhofe is well known in his home state of Oklahoma and in Washington, DC as one of the most conservative members of the United States Senate. Human Events recently ranked Inhofe #1 on its list of the “Top 10 Most Outstanding Conservative Senators.” In 2013, National Journal ranked Inhofe among the top five most conservative members of the Senate.

ICC-10-winners-inhofe

David Legates

David Legates, Ph.D. is professor of climatology in the Department of Geography at the University of Delaware and an adjunct professor at the university’s Physical Ocean Science and Engineering Program and in the Department of Applied Economics.

ICC-10-winners-legates

Anthony Watts

Anthony Watts is a 25-year broadcast meteorology veteran and currently chief meteorologist for KPAY-AM radio. He got his start as an on-air meteorologist for WLFI-TV in Lafayette, Indiana and at KHSL-TV in Chico, California.

2017 WINNERS

J. Scott Armstrong

J. Scott Armstrong is a professor at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, and founder of the Journal of Forecasting, International Journal of Forecasting, and International Symposium on Forecasting.

ICC-10-winners-armstrong

John Barrasso

U.S. Sen. John Barrasso has a long and distinguished career in both medicine and public service. In 2012, Barrasso was reelected to the U.S. Senate with over 75 percent of the vote to represent his home state of Wyoming. He is the fourth-ranking member in the Senate Republican leadership and chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

ICC-12-winners-barrasso

Walter Cunningham

Walter Cunningham is best known as pilot of Apollo 7, the first manned flight test of the Apollo Program to land a man on the Moon. He is a retired Marine Corps fighter pilot with the rank of colonel and 4,500 hours pilot time. He is a successful businessman, entrepreneur, venture capitalist, lecturer, and author.

ICC-12-winners-cunningham

Myron Ebell

Myron Ebell is director of energy and global warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. He chairs the Cooler Heads Coalition, representing more than two dozen non-profit groups in the U.S. and abroad that question global warming alarmism and oppose energy rationing policies. He led the EPA Transition Team for the Trump Administration in 2016-2017.

2014 WINNERS

E. Calvin Beisner

Dr. E. Calvin Beisner is national spokesman for The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, editor of the Cornwall Alliance’s electronic newsletter, and author or co-author of several major papers and articles on global warming produced by the Cornwall Alliance.

CCA-winners-for-site-Beisner

Alan Carlin

Dr. Alan Carlin, now retired, was a career environmental economist at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from 1971 to 2009. His criticism of the agency’s draft Endangerment Finding led to efforts to silence him and orders to stop working on global warming issues. He chose to become a whistleblower, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute broke the story in June 2009.

CCA-winners-for-site-carlin

Tom Harris

Tom Harris is executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition, a non-partisan group of independent scientists, economists, and energy and policy experts who are working to promote better understanding of climate science and policy worldwide.

CCA-winners-for-site-harris

Sherwood Idso

Dr. Sherwood Idso, one of the world’s leading authorities on the effects of carbon dioxide on plants, is president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. Prior to 2001 he was a research physicist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service at the U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory in Phoenix, Arizona, where he worked since 1967.

CCA-winners-for-site-idso

Christopher Monckton

Christopher Monckton, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, is chief policy advisor to the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI). He has held positions with the British press and in government, as a press officer at the Conservative Central Office and as Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s policy advisor.

CCA-winners-for-site-monckton

Patrick Moore

Dr. Patrick Moore is an internationally renowned ecologist and environmentalist. Beginning his career as an activist/leader in the Greenpeace movement he now concentrates on collaborative efforts aimed at finding environmental solutions. He speaks and lectures frequently at universities, community meetings, and conferences.

CCA-winners-for-site-moore

Arthur B. Robinson

Dr. Arthur Robinson is a distinguished chemist, cofounder of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, and editor of the newsletter Access to Energy. He also works on the development of home schooling techniques and on the public dissemination of information on civil defense

CCA-winners-for-site-robinson

S. Fred Singer

Dr. S. Fred Singer was among the first and is still the most prominent scientist in the world speaking out against global warming alarmism. He is the author, coauthor, and editor of many books, including Climate Change Reconsidered (several volumes) and more than 200 peer-reviewed journal articles.

CCA-winners-for-site-singer

Willie Soon

Dr. Willie Soon, an astrophysicist and a geoscientist, is a leading authority on the relationship between solar phenomena and global climate. His discoveries challenge computer modelers and advocates who consistently underestimate solar influences on cloud formation, ocean currents, and wind that cause climate to change.

CCA-winners-for-site-soon

Roy W. Spencer

Dr. Roy W. Spencer is a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He previously was a senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites

==

1/16

4. WSJ Op-Ed ClaimsFinding That Bacon Causes CancerIs Part Of Climate Change Conspiracy

The Wall Street Journal published a Nov. 9 op-ed, The Climate Agenda Behind the Bacon Scare, which was co-authored by Jeff Stier and Julie Kelly of the oil industry-backed National Center for Public Policy Research and Heartland Institute, respectively. Stier and Kelly asserted that the World Health Organization’s announcement linking red and processed meats to cancer “seems particularly well timed” to coincide with the United Nations climate negotiations in Paris, and baselessly claimed that “[t]he widely publicized warning about meat isn’t about health. It’s about fighting global warming.”

==

http://grist.org/list/vice-takes-on-climate-change-and-guess-what-its-pretty-bleak/  video

The third season of VICE on HBO premieres tonight, and the star of the very first episode is — you guessed it! — Shane Smith climate change! Smith, founder of the now-massive media company, has made climate change his preferred cause célèbre in recent years. After measuring melting ice in Greenland last season, he’s At It Again with trips to West Antarctica and Bangladesh: West Antarctica being where the most ice is melting the fastest, and Bangladesh being where sea-level rise is most apparently already fucking people over.

==

http://ecowatch.com/2014/08/05/global-warming-deniers-desperate/2/

d suz

The Heartland Institute’s recent International Climate ChangeConferencein Las Vegas illustrates climate change deniers’ desperate confusion. As Bloomberg News noted, “Heartland’s strategy seemed to be to throw many theories at the wall and see what stuck.” A who’s who of fossil fuel industry supporters and anti-science shills variously argued that global warming is a myth; that it’s happening but natural—a result of the sun or “Pacific Decadal Oscillation;” that it’s happening but we shouldn’t worry about it; or that global coolingis the real problem.

The only common thread, Bloomberg reported, was the preponderance of attacks on and jokes about Al Gore: “It rarely took more than a minute or two before one punctuated the swirl of opaque and occasionally conflicting scientific theories.”  

Personal attacks are common among deniers. Their lies are continually debunked, leaving them with no rational challenge to overwhelming scientific evidence that the world is warming and that humans are largely responsible. Comments under my columns about global warming include endless repetition of falsehoods like “there’s been no warming for 18 years,” “it’s the sun,” and references to “communist misanthropes,” “libtard warmers,” alarmists and worse…

Far worse. Katharine Hayhoe, director of Texas Tech’s Climate Science Center and an evangelical Christian, had her email inbox flooded with hate mail and threats after conservative pundit Rush Limbaugh denounced her, and right-wing blogger Mark Morano published her email address. “I got an email the other day so obscene I had to file a police report,” Hayhoesaid in an interview on the Responding to Climate Change website. “They mentioned my child. It had all kinds of sexual perversions in it—it just makes your skin crawl.”

One email chastised her for taking “a man’s job” and called for her public execution, finishing with, “If you have a child, then women in the future will be even more leery of lying to get ahead, when they see your baby crying next to the basket next to the guillotine.”

Many attacks came from fellow Christians unable to accept that humans can affect “God’s creation.” That’s a belief held even by a few well-known scientists and others held up as climate experts, including Roy Spencer, David Legates and Canadian economist Ross McKitrick. They’ve signed the Cornwall Alliance’s Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, which says, “We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence—are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception.” This worldview predetermines their approach to the science.

Lest you think nasty, irrational comments are exclusively from fringe elements, remember the gathering place for most deniers, the Heartland Institute, has compared those who accept the evidence for human-caused climate change to terrorists. Similar language was used to describe the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in a full-page ad in USA Todayand Politico from the Environmental Policy Alliance, a front group set up by PR firm Berman and Company, which has attacked environmentalists, labour-rights advocates, health organizations—even Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the Humane Society—on behalf of funders and clients including Monsanto, Wendy’s and tobacco giant Phillip Morris. The terrorism meme was later picked up by Pennsylvania Republican congressman Mike Kelly.

Fortunately, most people don’t buy irrational attempts to disavow science. A Forum Research poll found 81 percent of Canadians accept the reality of global warming, and 58 percent agree it’s mostly human-caused. An Ipsos MORI poll found that, although the U.S. has a higher number of climate change deniers than 20 countries surveyed, 54 percent of Americans believe in human-caused climate change. (Research also shows climate change denial is most prevalent in English-speaking countries, especially in areas “served” by media outlets owned by Rupert Murdoch, who rejects climate science.)

It’s time to shift attention from those who sow doubt and confusion, either out of ignorance or misanthropic greed, to those who want to address a real, serious problem. The BBC has the right idea, instructing its reporters to improve accuracy by giving less air time to people with anti-science views, including climate change deniers.

Solutions exist, but every delay makes them more difficult and costly.

You Might Also Like

Ignoring Climate Risks Could Sink U.S. Economy

France Approves Long-Awaited Landmark Climate Bill

Inert and Pathetic Federal Government Incapable of Transitioning to Renewable Economy

===

see mashey fake experts http://desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/fake2.pdf

E&CN Heartland Environment and Climate News, §W

4 Heartland, tobacco, NIPCC and CSCDGC

NIPCC Nongovernmental IPCC, Reports by Singer for Heartland 22

Some think tanks act as tax-free PR/lobbying agencies that seem

independent. A maze of murky money movements connects funders with

think tanks and spokespeople, Fig. F.1 is general, §ES.1 specific.

Many of the tactics for climate anti-science were

originally developed by the tobacco industry.80 They had

once used tobacco industry groups, but later preferred

“independent” front groups and even more

“independent” think tanks. Many of the same

organizations and sometimes the same people have been

involved with tobacco advocacy and climate antiscience,

so §F’s tobacco context in is extremely relevant:

 Tobacco legal settlements have created public records of strategies,

interactions and financial transactions. Those offer great insights.

 Tobacco companies have known for decades they survived only by

addicting children to something that will kill many of them, slowly.

Many think tanks seemed eager to help and begged for money to do so.

That may help readers calibrate their credibility elsewhere.

Heartland is a media advocacy business run by Joseph Bast and his wife,

Diane Carol Bast. They have sought and gotten tobacco funding

frequently during the 1990s and 2000s, and have been strong tobacco

defenders, §F, §G. Philip Morris’ Roy Marden became a Heartland Board

member no later than 1996 and continued through 2008. Bast81 wrote

passionately in support of the “Joe Camel” campaign, well-documented as

the most effective USA campaign to target children, §G.1. IRS-0E

Bast’s letter to Philip Morris touted Heartland’s abilities to reach US

elected officials, as have Heartland’s donations pages, advertisements and

conferences and E&CN, §W. Although this certainly seems like lobbying,

Heartland 990s deny lobbying activity. If this somehow stays within the

letter of the 501(c)(3) law, it violates the spirit. IRS-5L

Heartland stopped listing donors sometime after 2003, and has never said

much about amounts, so donor patterns must be assembled from

80 PRO2012 pp.257-304, §H.3

81 Here, “Bast” alone indicates Joseph Bast, as he is more frequently mentioned.

fragmentary information, §G.2. Donors have included tobacco and

petroleum companies, plus many of the same family foundations that have

funded other think tanks promoting climate anti-science.82 In the last

decade, Heartland seems to have expanded strongly into climate antiscience

advocacy, concurrent with rising revenues from DONORS

TRUST, a “donor-advised fund” whose original sources are hidden, but

quite likely involve a few of the same families, §H.1, §I.

Heartland has run 6 climate conferences 2008-2011, including one in

Australia. It has paid trip expenses for government officials.83 These

conferences claim to be science, but are really doubt-creation efforts

strongly criticized by one of the world’s two most prestigious science

journals, Nature, §N. IRS-0E

It has leveraged its legislative-distribution system to promote climate antiscience

materials, including “Experts” and Singer’s NIPCC Reports,

advertised to public and legislators. They look like science but are not.

Heartland’s financials, §H.1, are more conventional than SEPP’s, although

like SEPP, money comes from unidentified sources and often gets sent to

unidentified places, sometimes outside the US. IRS-10F At least it pays

salaries and there is no large buildup of assets by stock trading,

In line with claims of government access, program services expenses

include explicit mentions of work “educating and informing local, state

and national elected officials.” §H.2.

Heartland tries to reach both elected officials and the public.84

Its grants were sometimes odd, §H.3, seeming to be pass-thrus from

elsewhere. Singer claimed to get $143K (2007) and $40K (2010) for

NIPCC, which one would naturally expect to have come from Heartland.

However, Heartland in 2007 listed only $15K for SEPP, and $120K spread

among 4 foreign entities who do climate anti-science, 3 of which seem not

to be charities in their own countries. That could be a problem. IRS-10F

82 But it is curious to find Proctor and Gamble adjacent to Philip Morris as a

Platinum Sponsor in 1999 and Whole Foods in 1999-2002.

83 Staffers of Joe Barton (R-TX) attended often.

84 This is sometimes called treetops and grassroots politics.

Fake science, fakexperts, funny finances, free of tax 2 John R. Mashey D R A F T V2 10/23/12

19

With NIPCC, Singer (and then with Craig Idso and Bob Carter) led a team

including 20+ of his foreign national friends, §E, to produce reports to be

feed the Heartland distribution system . Serious climate scientists

criticized the reports and so did Nature, §N. Loose ends remain in the

participation and funding flows between Heartland and Craig Idso ‘s

CSCDGC, §K. NIPCC slightly resembles the tobacco industry’s fake

science bodies, such as the Council For Tobacco Research. IRS-0E

Heartland created an ideology distribution channel and marketed it well:

 A receiver of funds treatable as charitable gifts by the donors.

 A PR agency, in effect, but tax-free.

 A lobbying entity, although the rules are complex.85

It repeatedly promotes its access to legislators. IRS-5L

 In some cases, possibly a conduit of (charitable-deduction) money to

other charities and non-charities. IRS-7F IRS-10F

 It accepts money from companies that benefit by privatizing profits

and socializing the risks/costs, whose extreme example is tobacco.

Heartland seems a PR/lobbying group seeking customers.

See its 2011 Prospectus 86 or the current Heartland “About” page: 87

“Mission: Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions

to social and economic problems. …

Policy Advisors: Approximately 130 academics and professional economists

participate in its peer review process, and more than 200 elected officials serve

on its Legislative Forum.

Publications: Heartland sends six monthly public policy newspapers addressing

the major domestic public policy issues to every national and state elected

official in the U.S. plus 8,400 county and local officials and thousands of

civic and business leaders. It also produces books, policy studies, and booklets.

Communications: We appeared in print and on television or radio nearly 1,400

times in 2010. More than one million people visited our Web sites in the last 12

months. Our Facebook page registers nearly 53,000 fans and approximately

300,0000 post views every week.

85 www.irs.gov/publications/p557/ch03.html#en_US_2010_publink1000200268

86 heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/2011Prospectus.pdf especially p.11.

87 heartland.org/about 01/03/12.

Government Relations: Our government relations staff made more than one

million contacts with elected officials in 2010, 14,715 of those contacts were

one-on-one either in person, by phone, or by one-to-one emails.” IRS-5L?

Survey Results: A telephone survey of randomly selected state and local elected

officials conducted in 2011 found 79% of state legislators and 63% of local

elected officials read at least one of our publications. 45% of state legislators say

a Heartland publication changed their mind or led to a change in public policy.

Funding: Approximately 1,800 supporters 88 support an annual budget of $6

million. Heartland does not accept government funding. Contributions are taxdeductible

under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.”

For NIPCC, Heartland worked with Craig Idso and his CSCDGC charity,

which now hosts NIPCC publications.. CSCDGC has a subsidiary charity,

CO2Science, to which money moves in odd ways. CSCDGC’s highest paid

employee is Robert Ferguson ( $321K in 2010), who calls himself

President of the Science and Public Policy Institute, actually not much

more than Ferguson, a PO box in a UPS store and a website, plus

“advisors.” No casual reader would guess SPPI is a CSCDGC front.

James M. Taylor infused monthly E&CN newspapers with much clear

disinformation. Among the many examples, the most pervasive was abuse

of satellite temperature analyses, followed by the continual promotion of

fakexpert Michael Crichton’s misleading claims as science. E&CN was

filled with inflammatory words and attacks on scientists, written by

fakexperts who usually quoted each other for support. IRS-0E

Behind all this are the funders, some of whom are still unknown, but the

money trail led to Philanthropy Roundtable, a coordinating body for

conservative foundations, §I. Charles G. Koch got their 2011 William E.

Simon Prize.89 DONORS TRUST and DONORS CAPITAL, run by

Whitney Ball, were spun off to create “donor-advised” funds. They take

money from unnamed donors, then make grants with no indication of

original sources, adding one more step to the murky money maze.

88 During 2007-2009, more than 50% came from DONORS CAPITAL/TRUST.

89 www.philanthropyroundtable.org/topic/excellence_in_philanthropy/market_base

...

A quickNIPCC sample of familiar people, mostly climate fakexperts:187

 Anderson, economics professor at GMU, author Fire and Ice188

 Armstrong, marketing forecaster at Wharton School, U Pennsylvania

 Avery, agricultural economist at Hudson Institute

 Bast, President of Heartland, tobacco advocate, no degree known

 Battaglia, chemistry professor, author of Green Outside, Red Inside

 Carter, marine geologist, adjunct researcher at James Cook University

 Corbyn, meteorologist with a secret forecasting method189

 Courtney, coal industry scientist and editor

 Crockford, best-known as researcher of the evolution of dogs

 D’Aleo, retired TV meteorologist

 Easterbrook, emeritus geology professor, known for imminent global cooling

 Goklany, EE and policy analyst at US Dept of Interior

 Goldberg, mechanical engineer

 Gray, retired coal industry researcher

 Haapala, economist, SEPP Exec. VP

 Hagen, combustion engineer

 Heiss (dec), rocket scientist

 Idso, Craig, geographer, Chair of CSCDGC

 Idso, Sherwood, soil scientist, president of CSCDGC

 Jaworowski (dec), retired prof of atomic radiation

 Khandekar, retired Environment Canada scientist

 Kininmonth, retired meteorologist

 Labohm, economist

 Lupo, atmospheric scientist

 Maccabee, radiation biophysicist,

 Monckton, UK Viscount, claimed membership in House of Lords

His presence alone causes a serious credibility problem.

 Motl, Czech theoretical physicist, string theorist, blogger (not for children)

 Scafetta, theoretical physicist dedicated to planetary cycles, not CO2

 Schmitt, geologist/astronaut

 Segalstad, geologist

 Soon, astrophysicist at HS CfA, not Harvard U

 Weber, meteorologist with German Coal Mining Association

===

Scientists Advocate Climate Realism at Heartland Institute’s ICCC-8

January 15, 2013

James M. Taylor, J.D.

The scientific method prevailed against shoddy science as The Heartland Institute hosted itsEighth International Conferenceon Climate Change, Nov. 30 and Dec. 1 in Munich, Germany.

The European Institute for Climate and Energy (known by its German acronym, EIKE) co-hosted the conference, which attracted nearly 200 attendees and continued ongoing global momentum in favor of sound science and against factually unsupported alarmism.

Nature Driving Temperatures

American atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer explained how natural variance accounts for most of the global warming of the past century. Presenting objective data of temperature changes in the lower atmosphere, Singer demonstrated United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) computer models predicting substantial global warming are failing to accurately reproduce real-world temperatures.

The best available real-world data, Singer explained, show humans are having little influence on global temperatures.

Sea Level Claims Debunked

Nils-Axel Morner, former head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, documented a dramatic deceleration of sea level rise during the past 40 years. Morner showed global sea level has risen minimally since 1973 and most of the sea level rise asserted by global warming alarmists is produced by data adjustments, not real-world sea level measurements.

Role of Cosmic Rays

Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, showed how cosmic rays likely account for much recent global warming. Scientists have documented how cosmic rays seed cloud formation in the earth’s atmosphere. When the sun is undergoing periods of increased solar output, cosmic rays are more efficiently blocked from reaching the earth’s atmosphere. The resulting decrease in cloudiness enables the sun to more efficiently warm the earth.

Shaviv showed how global warming alarmists are ignoring the impact of solar variance and cosmic rays on the earth’s climate, and are therefore erroneously assigning too much recent warming to carbon dioxide rather than enhanced solar output.

IPCC Incompetence, Bias

Investigative journalist Donna Laframboisedocumented a pervasive lack of expertise and rampant bias among IPCC participants. Laframboise identified several persons who are IPCC lead authors despite not having a Ph.D. or a Master’s degree in their asserted area of expertise. Invariably, these unqualified lead authors are global warming alarmists, while more qualified “skeptics” are not invited to participate in the IPCC process.

Similarly, Laframboise showed IPCC frequently defies its own standards for peer review in order to misleadingly present non-peer-reviewed materials as compelling scientific evidence. Laframboise documented approximately 30 percent of IPCC citations are to non-peer-reviewed materials, even though IPCC claims it only considers peer-reviewed studies. Nearly half the chapters in IPCC’s most recent assessment report (21 out of 44 chapters) cited peer-reviewed materials less than 60 percent of the time. Many of these citations were to advocacy papers authored by environmental activist groups.

Laframboise created a stir among the audience by documenting a glaring lack of objectivity among IPCC lead authors. Laframboise showed how staffers from environmental activist groups such as Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) have editorial control over IPCC reports. One IPCC lead author, Laframboise observed, is currently running for political office in Canada, representing the Green Party.

Modest, Beneficial Warming

The conference’s central theme was the scientific evidence is woefully short of supporting alarmist assertions that humans are causing a global warming crisis. To the extent the scientific evidence leads to a particular conclusion in the global warming debate, it is that humans are modestly enhancing a natural warming cycle that fortunately rescued the planet from the depths of the Little Ice Age.

Several scientists pointed out that during most of the past 10,000 years, the time period since the last full-blown ice age glaciation ended, global temperatures were warmer than today. Global warming may be occurring, the scientist noted, but global temperatures are far from surpassing the warmth experienced for much of the past 10,000 years.

The scientists documented how warming and cooling spells, many of which were more dramatic than our recent warming, have always occurred during the earth’s history. The mere fact that our present-day climate shows a “climate change” of modest warming is far from unusual.

ICCC-9 in 2013?

“This conference shows that a growing number of people are challenging global warming alarmism even here in Germany, where alarmism is most deeply entrenched,” Wolfgang Müller, the EIKE point person for the conference, told Environment & Climate News. “Every year the conference grows in size and political impact. The government hates us for it.”

Müller encouraged The Heartland Institute to work with EIKE to present another International Conference on Climate Change in Europe during 2013.

James M. Taylor (jtaylor@heartland.org ) is managing editor of Environment & Climate News.

Author bio:

James M. Tayloris managing editor of Environment & Climate News, a national monthly publication devoted to sound science and free-market environmentalism. He is also senior fellow for The Heartland Institute, focusing on energy and environment issues.

Taylor writes a weekly column for *Forbes* which appears on the magazine's Forbes.com website.

Taylor has presented energy and environment analysis on CNN, CNN Headline News, Fox News Channel, Fox Business Channel, MSNBC, PBS News Hour, PBS Frontline, CBS Evening News, ABC World News and other TV and radio outlets across the country. Taylor has also been published in virtually every major newspaper in the country.

He has been a featured presenter at conferences sponsored by such groups as the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the Council of State Governments, the National Association of Counties, the National Foundation of Women Legislators, the State Policy Network (SPN), CPAC, the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the European Institute for Climate and Energy. Video of Taylor's presentation at The Heartland Institute's Eighth International Conference on Climate Change can be found here.

Taylor received his bachelor's degree from Dartmouth College where he studied atmospheric science and majored in government. He received his Juris Doctorate from Syracuse University. He is the host of the "Inside Florida Politics" show on WGUL, a Salem Radio station in the Tampa market, and also maintains a personal Web site.

found online at http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2013/01/15/scientists-advocate-climate-realism-heartland-institutes-iccc-8

==

sw

David H. Padden is President of Padden & Company Inc.[1], a Chicago-based investment securities firm, and spinoff Padco Lease Corporation. He plays a prominent role in a number of libertarian think tanks:

• Heartland Institute, founder and director 2004 [2]
• Cato Institute, director 2004 [3]
• Citizens for a Sound Economy, former director
• Acton Institute, former director
• Bionomics Institute, director
• Foundation for Economic Education, former director
• Center for Libertarian Studies, former director
• Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, director 2001 [4]

References

• Heartland Institute, David H. Padden biography, accessed February 2004.
• Padco Lease Corporation -- A Chicago based Investment banking firm purchases leases for resale to a select group of private investors. Padco is a spin off of Padden & Company, Inc., founded in 1963.[5]

Known Associates

Peter Ackerman, Managing Director, Rockport Financial Ltd.; K. Tucker Andersen, Senior Consultant, Cumberland Associates LLC; Frank Bond, Chairman, The Foundation Group; Edward H. Crane, President, Cato Institute; Richard J. Dennis, President, Dennis Trading Group

; Theodore J. Forstmann, Principal, Forstmann Little & Company;Ethelmae C. Humphreys, Chairman, Tamko Roofing Products, Inc.; David H. Koch, Executive Vice President, Koch Industries, Inc.;John C. Malone, Chairman, Liberty Media Corporation; William A. Niskanen, Chairman, Cato Institute; Lewis E. Randall, Board Member, E*Trade Financial;Howard S. Rich, President, U.S. Term Limits; Frederick W. Smith, Chairman & CEO, FedEx Corporation; Jeffrey S. Yass, Managing Director, Susquehanna International Group, LLP;

Alejandro A. Chafuen; Wade Fetzer III; Edwin J. Feulner, Jr.; David Humphreys; Alejandro Garza Lagüera; Bernard T. Lomas; Jeff D. Sandefer; Robert A. Sirico; George W. Strake, Jr.; David Humphreys - Chairman, Tamko Asphalt Products; Betsy DeVos - Treasurer, The Windquest Group, Inc.;Alejandro A. Chafuen - Secretary, Atlas Economic Research Foundation; Rev. Robert A. Sirico - President, The Acton Institute; Barry Conner, America's Home Place; Robert Costello, Social Security Choice.org; Frank Hanna III, HBR Capital, Ltd.; Alejandro Garza Lagüera, Pulsar International; David Milroy, Reams Asset Management Company; J.C. Huizenga, National Heritage Academies;

Sidney J. Jansma, Jr., Wolverine Gas and Oil Corporation; Ren Broekhuizen, Pastor, Ridge Point Community Church; Carol Erickson Martino, Consultant, Ambrosetti Group; Daniel C. Lynch, Bionomics Chairman; Terry Huffington; Mark H. Edwards; J.G. "Mike" Ford, Jr.; Peter Gruber; Allan C. King; Leo Linbeck, Jr.; Leigh Marriner; Bill Melton; John Porter; Michael Rothschild; Mark A. Tebbe;Herbert J. Walberg, Chairman University of Illinois - Chicago;

James L. Johnston Amoco Corporation (retired); Joseph L. Bast, President and CEO, TheHeartland Institute; Roy E. Marden, Public Policy Consultant; Walter F. Buchholtz, ExxonMobil Corporation; Robert Buford, Planned Realty Group; Frank Resnik, Medline Inc. (retired); Paul Fisher, Piper, Marbury, Rudnick & Wolfe; Leslie Rose, Fidelity Bank; James Fitzgerald, BankNote Capital LLC; Lee Tooman, Golden Rule Insurance Company; Dan Hales, Peterson & Ross; Lee H. Walker, New Coalition for Economic & Social Change; William Higginson, Chicago Equity Fund Inc.; Thomas Walton, General Motors; Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation Board of Directors: David H. Koch; Sarah Atkins; **Wayne Gable**; John Thomas;Walter Williams. CSE Board of Directors: Jim Burnley; **C. Boyden Gray**; Thomas Knudsen; James C. Miller III; Richard Stephenson; Dirk Van Dongen.

===

rational wiki

The Heartland Institute is a stock-issue conservative/libertarian "think tank" based in Chicago and founded by Joseph L. Bast. It has ties to Richard Mellon Scaife, Exxon, and Philip Morris (the usual suspects).

Heartland concentrates especially on "free market environmentalism," which is Newspeak for denialism. "Smoker's rights" is one of their favorite issues, which comes as no surprise as a Philip Morris executive once sat on their board of directors. They have consistently denied the link between second-hand smoke and cancer. They are also a font of global warming denial, publishing "research" by notorious deniers Anthony Watts and S. Fred Singer. No surprise, once again, that an Exxon exec once sat on their board as well.

Besides anti-environmentalism, they also advocate "school choice" and "reform" (i.e. union busting), lower taxes, and health care"reform" (i.e., total privatization).

The banner on their home page displays, along with libertarian ideologues like Ayn Rand (who underwent surgery for lung cancer) and Ludwig von Mises, a number of historical figures including Crispus Attucks (first man killed in the Boston Massacre), Benjamin Franklin, Booker T. Washington, John Locke, Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jefferson. No doubt they are rolling in their graves.

[edit]ClimateWiki

In 2011, Heartland launched ClimateWiki, which is supposedly an "encyclopedia of climate change research organized by topic." It seems to be mostly copy-pasted from Wikipedia with the usual denialist "research" thrown in (Ross McKitrick, S. Fred Singer, Patrick Michaels, the Idso family,Roy Spencer, Christopher Monckton, etc.) along with some "original" content. Registration is by e-mail only and so far the only registered users are other Heartland flacks.

[edit]2012 leaked budget socuments

For a detailed account, see Denialgate.

In February 2012, DeSmog Blog obtained budget documents from an insider^[1] although the Heartland Institute claimed someone mistakenly e-mailed the documents and that one document was false.^[2][3][4] Other sources seem to corroborate the authenticity of the leaked documents^[5] and all of the concrete items appear in the budget, albeit with different amounts.^[6] The documents have proven controversial for their detailed explication of Heartland's campaign on behalf of climate skepticism.

[edit]Mass murderer-global warming advertising campaign

On May 4, 2012, Heartland started a new campaign with pictures of Ted Kaczynski, Charles Manson, and Fidel Castro with the words "I still believe in global warming. Do you?"^[7] (And it's not Poe's Law.^[8]) Heartland said in a press release, "Scientific, political, and public support for the theory of man-made global warming is collapsing. Most scientists and 60 percent of the general public (in the U.S.) do not believe man-made global warming is a problem. (Keep reading for proof of these statements.) The people who still believe in man-made global warming are mostly on the radical fringe of society. This is why the most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen."^[9]

Amid near unanimous outcry from enemies and allies alike,^[10] Heartland pulled the campaign that day, saying, "We know that our billboard angered and disappointed many of Heartland’s friends and supporters, but we hope they understand^[11] what we were trying to do with this experiment. We do not apologize for running the ad, and we will continue to experiment with ways to communicate the ‘realist’ message on the climate."^[9] As a result, Diageo (i.e., Guinness, Smirnoff, and Johnnie Walker),^[12] the United Services Automobile Association,^[13] State Farm^[14] and several other insurerspulled their supportfor the think tank. The insurance companies migration reflects a "mutiny" at Heartland's Center on Finance, Insurance and Real Estate, especially after its head, Eli Lehrer, decided to leave Heartland. "Lehrer was largely responsible for raising $1.03 million from insurers over the last two years for programs that seek reduced government subsidies in federal flood insurance, decreased development along coastlines and increased funding for efforts to strengthen homes against natural catastrophes."^[15] Later, Eli Lilly, BB&T Bank, and Pepsi also withdrew their support.^[16]

Since the billboards were now empty, the Climate Reality Project posted billboards asking "Who to believe on climate: Heartland? ...or EVERY National Scientific Academy in the world?"^[17] The billboards were posted in advance of Heartland's media self love event annual conference.

[edit]Chinese Academy of Science rebuke

On June 12, 2013, Heartland posted a story on its website entitled, "Chinese Academy of Sciences Publishes Heartland Institute Research Skeptical of Global Warming."^[18] with the claim, "The trend toward skepticism and away from alarmism is now unmistakable… Publication of a Chinese translation of Climate Change Reconsidered by the Chinese Academy of Sciences indicates the country's leaders believe their [failure to sign a global climate treaty] is justified by science and not just economics."^[19] The Chinese Academy of Sciences strongly rebuked the piece, saying:

As usual, Heartland Institute tried to cover up the problem, retracting the story and claiming, "Some people interpreted our news release and a blog post describing this event as implying that the Chinese Academy of Sciences endorses the views contained in the original books. This is not the case, and we apologize to those who may have been confused by these news reports."^[21]

Even more bizarre is that Anthony Watts posted a story, "Heartland’s NIPCC report to be accepted by Chinese Academy of Sciences in special ceremony."^[22]It's unclear if the "special ceremony" occurred.

[edit]See also

• Forbes magazine (employs James Taylor as a propagandist columnist)

[edit]External links

• Their webshite
• Sourcewatch entry
• Collection of tobacco denialism at Legacy Tobacco Documents Library.
• Heartland fact sheet at Exxon Secrets
• Heartland on Global Warming at PRWatch
• DeSmog Blog category
• Debunking Heartland's "500 skeptical scientists" list, Greenfyre
• Shorter Heartland Conference, Deltoid

[edit]ClimateWiki

• The wiki in question
• Stoat on ClimateWiki: The Heartland Institute's failed wiki, It's fun to snark
• Heartland Institute launches a 'closed' climate change wiki, The Guardian

===

2012

Which Major Corporations Are Backing a Climate-Denier Think Tank?

—By Jaeah Lee

| Sat Feb. 18, 2012

Over at ThinkProgress Green, Josh Israel and Brad Johnson expose 19 major corporations backing the Heartland Institute, the think tank whose internal documents were leaked this week, laying bare its plans to teach students that climate change is a hoax and other anti-climate efforts. As my colleagueKate Sheppard reported on Thursday, the documents—posted here and here—prompted a backlash from Heartland, which deemed at least one of the documents fake and some tampered with. Interestingly, Heartland president Joseph Bast then used the incident to write to donors, first to apologize—the leaked emails identified some private donors, to whom Heartland promises anonymity "because nobody wants the risk of nutty environmentalists or Occupy Wall Street goons harassing them"—and then to ask for more money ("Now more than ever, I need you to stand by us in our time of need").

Heartland's fundraising tactics (PDF) seem to have worked well in the past, given the group's impressive suite of corporate donations in 2010 and 2011. Here's a selection of the full list* of Heartland's corporate backers, via ThinkProgress:

Altria Client Services Inc.: $90,000

Amgen, USA: $25,000

Anheuser-Busch Companies Inc.: $5,000

AT&T: $100,000

BB&T: $16,105

BB&T Capital Markets, a division of BB&T Securities, LLC, is a part of BB&T Corporation, one of the nation's largest bank holding companies, serving the Southeast and national markets.  BAILED

Comcast Corporation: $35,000

General Motors Foundation: $30,000

GlaxoSmithKline: $50,000

Microsoft Corporation: $59,908

Nucor Corporation: $502,000

PepsiCo, Inc.: $5,000

Pfizer: $130,000

Reynolds American Inc.: $110,000

Time Warner Cable: $20,000

Correction: An earlier version of this article stated that the list above was the full list. The sentence has since been fixed.

==

env experts:

Jonathan H. Adler

Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Business Law & Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law

Mark Alliegro

Senior Scientist, Marine Biological Laboratory

Dennis Avery

Director, Center for Global Food Issues

Gary H. Baise

Principal Attorney, Olsson Frank Weedon

Dave Banks

Director of D.C. Operations, Alliance of Wise Energy Decisions

Charles Battig

Retired physician and electrical engineer

Alexandra (Sandy) Liddy Bourne

Policy Advisor, The Heartland Institute

William Briggs

Statistical Consultant, New York Methodist Hospital; wmbriggs.com

Robert M. Carter

Marine Geologist

Bonner R. Cohen

Senior fellow, National Center for Public Policy Research

Russell Cook

Contributing Editor, Environment & Climate News

Paul Crovo

Energy Analyst

Walter Cunningham

Apollo 7 astronaut, author

Donn Dears

Energy Expert; General Electric executive (retired)

Paul Driessen

Senior Policy Advisor, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow and Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise

Dr. John Dale Dunn, M.D., J.D.

Physician, Attorney, and Policy Advisor to The Heartland Institute

Jeré C. Fabick

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Steve Goreham

Author, Environmental Researcher

Kenneth Haapala

Executive Vice President, Science and Environmental Policy Project(SEPP)

Tom Harris

Executive Director, International Climate Science Coalition

Craig Idso

Founder and Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change

Jason Johnston

Henry L. and Grace Doherty Charitable Foundation Professor of Law, University of Virginia

Madhav Khandekar

Former Research Scientist, Environment Canada

Lynne Kiesling

Distinguished Senior Lecturer, Department of Economics, Northwestern University

Jay Lehr, Ph.D.

Science Director

Floy Lilley

Adjunct Scholar, Mises Institute

Dale Matcheck

Assistant Professor of Economics, Northwood University

Robert McGuire

Adjunct Research Professor, Economics, University of Akron

Andrew Morriss

D. Paul Jones, Jr. & Charlene Angelich Jones Chairholder of Law, University of Alabama

Marita Noon

Executive Director, Citizen's Alliance for Responsible Energy

Norman Rogers

Author, Founder of Rabbitt Semiconductor

James H. Rust

Policy Advisor, Environment

S. Fred Singer

Director, the Science and Environmental Policy Project

Walter Starck

Marine scientist and expert on coral reefs

Richard Stroup

Adjunct Professor, Poole College of Management, North Carolina State University

James M. Taylor, J.D.

Senior Fellow, The Heartland Institute; Managing Editor, Environment and Climate News

John Theon

NASA Atmospheric Scientist (retired)

Richard J. Trzupek

Principal Consultant, Trinity Consultants

Thomas Walton

Affiliated expert, AEG

Bernard (Bud) Weinstein

Associate Director, Maguire Energy Institute

129 gw experts

Syun-Ichi Akasofu

Founding Director, International Arctic Research Center

Mark Alliegro

Senior Scientist, Marine Biological Laboratory

David Archibald

Director, The Lavoisier Society

J. Scott Armstrong

Professor, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania

Dennis Avery

Director, Center for Global Food Issues

Sallie Baliunas

Astrophysicist and Senior Scientist, George C. Marshall Institute

Timothy Ball

Environmental Consultant and Former Climatology Professor, University of Winnipeg

Robert Balling

Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University

E. Calvin Beisner

National Spokesman, Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation

David Bellamy

Botanist, The Conservation Foundation

Donald Boudreaux

Chairman, Department of Economics, George Mason University

Robert Bradley

President, Institute for Energy Research

William Briggs

Statistical Consultant, New York Methodist Hospital; wmbriggs.com

H. Sterling Burnett

Senior Fellow, National Center for Policy Analysis

Robert M. Carter

Marine Geologist

Randall Cerveny

Associate Professor of Geography, Arizona State University

John Charles

President and CEO, Cascade Policy Institute

Paul Chesser

Associate Fellow, National Legal and Policy Center

Dr. Kennith Chilton

Director, Institute for Study of Economics and the Environment

John Christy

Director, Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama - Huntsville

etr Chylek

Team Leader, Los Alamos National Laboratory

Ian Clark

Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

John Coleman

Meteorologist, KUSI-TV San Diego

Roy Cordato

Vice President for Research, John Locke Foundation

Richard Courtney

Energy and Environment Consultant

Joseph D'Aleo

Executive Director, Icecap.us

Chris de Freitas

Associate Professor, University of Auckland

Peter Dietze

Energy Advisor and Climate Modeler, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

David Douglass

Professor of Physics, University of Rochester

Freeman Dyson

Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies

Myron Ebell

Director, Energy and Global Warming Policy, Competitive Enterprise Institute

Michael Economides

Professor, Cullen College of Engineering, University of Houston

Robert Essenhigh

Bailey Professor of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

Christopher Essex

Professor, Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Western Ontario

Dan Gainor

Vice President, Business & Media Institute

Lee Gerhard

Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas

Ivar Giaever

Fellow, American Physical Society

Indur Goklany

Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute

Fred Goldberg

Climate Analyst

Stanley Goldenberg

Meteorologist, Hurricane Research Division/AOML/NOAA

 Robert Gordon

President, Responsible Resources

Steve Goreham

Author, Environmental Researcher

Lawrence Gould

Professor of Physics, University of Hartford

Vincent Gray

Expert Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

:{William Gray

Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University}:

Kenneth Green

Senior Director, Energy and Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute

Kesten Green

Senior Research Fellow, Monash University

Kenneth Haapala

Executive Vice President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

Tom Harris

Executive Director, International Climate Science Coalition

Howard Hayden

Professor of Physics Emeritus, University of Connecticut

Ben Herman

Professor, University of Arizona Institute of Atmospheric Physics

Donald Hertzmark

Adjunct Professor in Global Electricity Markets, Johns Hopkins University

Art Horn

Meteorologist, The Art of Weather

Chris Horner

Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute

Craig Idso

Founder and Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change

Andrei Illarionov

Senior Fellow, Cato Institute

Roy Innis

National Chairman and CEO, Congress of Racial Equality

Kiminori Itoh

Professor, Yokohama National University

Yuri Izrael

Vice Chairman, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Jason Johnston

Henry L. and Grace Doherty Charitable Foundation Professor of Law, University of Virginia

 Madhav Khandekar

Former Research Scientist, Environment Canada

William Kininmonth

Scientist, Australasian Climate Research

Václav Klaus

President, Czech Republic

Hans Labohm

Guest Teacher, Netherlands Defense Academy

David Legates

Climatologist and Director, Delaware Environmental Observing System

Jay Lehr, Ph.D.

Science Director

Marlo Lewis

Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute

Richard Lindzen

Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Craig Loehle

Principal Scientist, National Council for Air and Stream Improvement

Leon Louw

Executive Director, Free Market Foundation

Anthony R. Lupo

Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri - Columbia

Howard Maccabee

Founding President, Doctors for Disaster Preparedness

Ken Malloy

Executive Director, Center for the Study of Carbon and Energy Markets

Jim Martin

President, 60 Plus Association

Phelim McAleer

Director and Producer, Not Evil Just Wrong

Ann McElhinney

Director and Producer, Not Evil Just Wrong

Ross McKitrick

Associate Professor of Economics, University of Guelph

Owen McShane

Chairman, Policy Panel, New Zealand Climate Science Coalition

Patrick Michaels

Senior Fellow, Cato Institute

Fred Michel

Director, Institute of Environmental Science, Carleton University

Steven Milloy

Portfolio Manager, Free Enterprise Action Fund

Ferenc Miskolczi

Atmospheric Physicist

Barun Mitra

Founder and Director, Liberty Institute

Lord Christopher Monckton

Chief Policy Advisor, Science and Public Policy Institute

Marc Morano

Executive editor and chief correspondent, ClimateDepot.com

Julian Morris

Executive Director, International Policy Network

Robert Murphy

Economist, Institute for Energy Research

Iain Murray

Director of Projects and Analysis/Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute

Todd Myers

Environmental Director, Washington Policy Center

James O'Brien

Professor Emeritus of Meteorology and Oceanography, The Florida State University

Kendra Okonski

Former Environment Programme Director,International Policy Network

R. Timothy Patterson

Professor of Geology, Carleton University

Mr. Alfred Pekarek

Assistant Professor of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, St. Cloud State University

Ian Plimer

Professor of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide

Eric Posmentier

Adjunct Faculty Member, Dartmouth College

Andreas Prokoph

Adjunct Professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Richard Rahn

Chairman, Institute for Global Economic Growth

Norman Rogers

Author, Founder of Rabbitt Semiconductor

James H. Rust

Policy Advisor, Environment

Ronald Rychlak

Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, University of Mississippi School of Law

Harrison Schmitt

Former NASA Astronaut and U.S. Senator

David Schnare

Senior Fellow - Energy and the Environment, Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy

Joel Schwartz

Visiting Scholar, American Enterprise Institute

Tom Segalstad

Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo

Nir Shaviv

Professor, Racah Institute of Physics

Daniel Simmons

Director of State Affairs, Institute for Energy Research

:{S. Fred Singer

Director, the Science and Environmental Policy Project}:

Fred L. Smith

President and Founder, Competitive Enterprise Institute

Lawrence Solomon

Founder and Managing Director, Energy Probe Research Foundation

Willie Soon

Chief Science Advisor, Science and Public Policy Institute

Douglas Southgate

Environmental Economist, Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development, Ohio State University

Roy Spencer

Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville

Walter Starck

Marine scientist and expert on coral reefs

John H. Sununu

President, JHS Associates, Ltd.

Thomas Tanton

President, T2 & Associates

George Taylor

State Climatologist and Faculty Member, Oregon State University

James M. Taylor, J.D.

Senior Fellow, The Heartland Institute; Managing Editor, Environment and Climate News

Mitch Taylor, PH.D.

Polar Bear Biologist, Lakehead University

John Theon

NASA Atmospheric Scientist (retired)

Margo Thorning, PH. D.

Senior Vice President and Chief Economist, American Council for Capital Formation

 David Tuerck, PH. D.

President, Beacon Hill Institute

Brian Valentine

General Engineer, U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Jan Veizer

Emeritus Professor of Geology, University of Ottawa

Paul Waggoner

Distinguished Scientist, The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station

Anthony Watts

Founder, SurfaceStations.org; WattsUpWithThat.com

Gerd-Rainer Weber, PH.D.

Scientist,German Coal Mining Association

Boris Winterhalter

Senior Marine Research (retired), Geological Survey of Finland

David Wojick, PH. D

Consultant, Office of Scientific and Technical Information b43?

Antonino Zichichi

Founder and Director, Ettore Majorana Foundation and Centre for Scientific Culture

Heartland Institute/International Conference on Climate Change (2009)

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Conference_on_Climate_Change_%282009%29

Chinese science academy slaps down climate-denying Heartland Institute

By John Upton

Well, that was embarrassing

The Heartland Institute — the right-wing group best known for its Unabomber billboard — recently boasted on a blogabout successfully spreading its message of climate denial to the Chinese:

The trend toward skepticism and away from alarmism is now unmistakable …

Publication of a Chinese translation of Climate Change Reconsidered by the Chinese Academy of Sciences indicates the country’s leaders believe their [failure to sign a global climate treaty] is justified by science and not just economics.

But really all that happened was that one of Heartland’s climate-denial reports, “Climate Change Reconsidered,” was translated into Chinese[PDF].

And translation does not mean endorsement. Even the translators’ preface says the work was undertaken “to understand different opinions and positions in debates on climate change” and “does not reflect that [those involved in the translation] agree with the views” in the report.

When the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) got wind of Heartland’s blog post, it was not pleased. It put out a statement harshly condemning the post:

The claim of the Heartland Institute about CAS’ endorsement of its report is completely false. …

Since there is absolutely no ground for the so called CAS endorsement of the report, and the actions by the Heartland Institute went way beyond acceptable academic integrity, we have requested by email to the president of the Heartland Institute that the false news on its website to be removed. We also requested that the Institute issue a public apology to CAS for the misleading statement on the CAS endorsement.

Heartl threatened legal action of anyone who posted glieck docs, then begged for $ to do so:

Internal Heartland Institute Email Blasts "Lamestream Media" for Climate Leak

>It's been an interesting few days in the climate denial world. On Tuesday, DeSmogBlog and Think Progress posted what they described as internal documents from the Heartland Institute, a fossil-fuel-funded right-wing think tank that spends much of its time denying climate change. The posted documents include plans for disseminating climate change disinformation to kids and to provide funding for science deniers.

Heartland responded on Wednesday, claiming that some of the documents are real, but others are a "total fake," and still others are being reviewed. The group wrote in a press release:

The stolen documents were obtained by an unknown person who fraudulently assumed the identity of a Heartland board member and persuaded a staff member here to "re-send" board materials to a new email address. Identity theft and computer fraud are criminal offenses subject to imprisonment. We intend to find this person and see him or her put in prison for these crimes.

It's worth noting that Heartland didn't seem to mind when emails between climate scientists that were stolen from a server, made public, and lied about on the internet—either the first or second time it happened. It's only now that that type of behavior is "just despicable," a "violation of journalistic ethics," and a criminal offense.

Now Heartland is using the incident to fundraise, according to an email to donors obtained by Mother Jones on Wednesday night. The email complains that "scores of bloggers and left-wing activists and their pets in the lamestream media" are posting and quoting the documents, and says that what New York Times' Andy Revkin did—i.e. publishing some of the documents—"was not only unethical, it was also probably illegal." It also asks for donations to the organization's legal defense fund to fight "false and defamatory" stories. And it apologizes to funders whose names were made public by the incident: "We promise anonymity to many of our donors because nobody wants the risk of nutty environmentalists or Occupy Wall Street goons harassing them. We know that privacy is important to you."

The full email is below the fold:

MotherJones.com

Dear Heartland donor,

I need your help!

Yesterday afternoon, two advocacy groups posted online several documents they claimed were The Heartland Institute's internal budget, fundraising, and strategy plans.

Now, scores of bloggers and left-wing activists and their pets in the lamestream media are posting and quoting these "leaked" documents.

We have released a formal statement about the situation (here), but I wanted to give you this personal explanation of what happened.

Your stalwart support is needed now more than ever. This attack would not have happened if we weren't unveiling the truth.

What Happened?

Someone stole the identity of a Heartland board member and persuaded a staff member here to "re-send" board materials to a new email address. That same unknown person forged a "strategy" memo that seriously misrepresents our goals and tactics and added it to the stolen documents, then sent them to many of the bloggers and hate groups that occupy the blogosphere.

I was in Washington, DC when Andrew Revkin of the New York Times broke the story without giving us a chance to confirm or deny the authenticity of the documents.

Since the documents were obviously stolen and marked "confidential," what Revkin did was not only unethical, it was also probably illegal.

I didn't get home until late last night. This morning we discovered how the crime was committed and confirmed that the "strategy" memo was a fraud. Just now we released a formal statement to the press and our allies explaining what happened.

Right now we are trying to get the individuals and organizations that have tried to make hay with these stolen and fraudulent documents to retract their statements, by threatening legal action if necessary.

About the Documents

Most of the leaked documents appear to have been written by me for a board meeting that took place on January 17. I have not yet had a chance to compare the ones that are posted online with the originals I wrote, so I don't know if they are authentic or have been altered.

At least one of the documents alleged to have come from Heartland, titled "Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy," is a forgery apparently intended to defame and discredit The Heartland Institute. It was not written by anyone associated with The Heartland Institute. It does not express Heartland's goals, plans, or tactics. It contains several obvious and gross misstatements of fact.

Left-wing bloggers are filling the blogosphere with quotes from the fake memo, claiming it reveals our "hidden agenda" and "secret plans." That is complete nonsense, a fraud, and a huge violation of journalistic ethics. But there it is.

Dave Padden, Heartland's founder and long-time chairman, used to say that a lie can run around the world while the truth is still tying its shoestrings. Of course he was right. We're witnessing that right now.

Legal Action?

We have reported the identity theft and computer fraud to the police and to the FBI. We are asking the bloggers and reporters to immediately remove these documents and all statements about them from the blogs, Web sites, and publications, and to publish retractions.

But we aren't holding our breath.

The individuals who have commented so far on these documents did not wait for Heartland to confirm or deny the authenticity of the documents. We believe their actions constitute civil and possibly criminal offenses for which we can pursue charges and collect payment for damages, including damages to our reputation.

Litigation is expensive, and it surely wasn't in our budget for 2012. But we don¹t think the criminals who did this ought to be allowed to skate away without penalty.

We are creating a legal defense fund to support litigation, starting immediately, to demand that false and defamatory material be removed from blogs and Web sites and publications, and that the true criminals in this case be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Can you make a charitable contribution to our legal defense fund?

You would be helping us defend ourselves against a cowardly and criminal attack. You would also help us take down a notch some of theleft-wing activistsand their friends who so plainly crossed the line this time.

I Apologize

I am very sorry that the identities of some of our donors were revealed by this theft. I apologize to them, from the bottom of my heart.

We are calling everyone who was named in these documents to give them the bad news and offer whatever assistance we can to repair the damage.

We promise anonymity to many of our donors because nobody wants the risk of nutty environmentalists or Occupy Wall Street goons harassing them. We know that privacy is important to you.

When the left runs out of arguments and facts which is usually pretty quickly they turn to attacking our donors. They do this to discourage people from supporting us, as well as other conservative and libertarian groups. We understand their game.

I also apologize to Heartland staff, directors, and our allies in the fight to bring sound science to the global warming debate, who have had their privacy violated and their integrity impugned. The criminals who did this had no right to do it. Their behavior is just despicable.

We have taken measures to ensure that we aren't victims of identity theft and computer fraud again, but in this age of identity theft and hacking, I can't promise it won't ever happen again.

Can You Help?

Now more than ever, I need you to stand by us in our time of need and show your pride as a Heartland donor.

This attack would not have happened if we weren't unveiling the truth. The left fears us properly because on climate change, we are the loudest and most effective voice against alarmism in the country, even the entire world.

The left has lost the debate on climate change on the science, the politics, and the economics. Opinion polls show we've won the public debate, and surveys of scientists show the majority of them are with us now.

Much of the change in public opinion, as well as the death of "cap and trade" as a political issue, can be traced to the millions of books, videos, booklets, and other publications we produced during the past four years. Nobody has done more than we have to sound the alarm against the left's ideologically driven fear campaign on global warming.

If you understand the importance of our efforts and you stand with us, please consider giving at this critical time to ensure we can continue this important fight of exposing climate truth.

I am being inundated with phone calls and emails about this extraordinary event, so if you respond to this message and don¹t hear back from me promptly, please be patient. I will reply!

Please feel free to contact our Development team,Amanda Evans, director of development, Rachel Dunbar, corporate relations manager, or Gwen Carver, membership manager, at 312/377-4000 or by email at aevans@heartland.org, rrivest@heartland.org, orgcarver@heartland.org respectively.

Best regards!

Joseph L. Bast

President

==

Last week the libertarian Heartland Institute held its 6th "International Conference on Climate Change" in Washington, DC, bringing together a varied batch of vocal climate contrarians to rail against the scientific consensus that human-induced climate change is a serious problem.

The speakers seemed to be more united by political ideology and a common enemy than by their grievances about the science. Among their assertions:

"CO2 was found guilty in contradiction to the evidence because as we are now all aware, the temperature changes before the CO2, it is not the other way around, as is the fundamental assumption that is made for the AGW." -- Tim Ball

"I agree with the IPCC that adding CO2 to the atmosphere should cause some warming. Where we differ is the degree of warming." -- Roy Spencer

"I believe that this warming shown here [after 1979] is not real, does not exist." -- Fred Singer

"From the mid-1970s," the earth warmed ".17 degrees C per decade in the surface record, .14 degrees in the satellite record." -- Pat Michaels

"I do not agree" that "the recent rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide is due to man." -- Steve Goreham

"There's no question that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere and that the primary cause is human." -- Fred Singer

Heartland senior fellow James Taylor claimed that the event is about "getting the science out to people," but several of the speakers indicated that this is by no means your typical scientific conference (if the repeated Atlas Shrugged references didn't give that away):

"I guess I'm not a climate skeptic, just an economist. I don't know enough about the climate science to be skeptical about it." -- Robert Mendelsohn

"I'm a lawyer, not a climate scientist." -- Barry Brill

"I'm not a climate scientist. ... I'm a space guy." -- Larry Bell

"I'm just a layperson ... I'm also a relative newcomer to the climate battle." -- Steve Goreham

"I feel a bit of an imposter talking about the science. I'm kind of -- I'm not a scientist, you may be aware. ... I leave the science stuff to you guys and I think it's good that we stick to our jobs." -- James Delingpole

One of the attendees complained to me that the media would ignore the conference because it doesn't fit the preferred narrative. As it turned out, the New York Times posted an uncritical Greenwire article about the event before it had even ended, which Heartland president Joseph Bast then praised as "really nice" and "balanced." ...http://mediamatters.org/blog/2011/07/07/heartland-institutes-climate-contrarians-enjoy/185131

RIP CONF:

1st wave of defections, heartland and coal took up slack:

In addition to the Illinois Coal Association, , Heritage Foundation has also joined to sponsor the conference.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/21/487460/heartland-institute-hemorrhages-donors-and-cash-for-extremist-agenda-as-coal-and-oil-step-in/

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/23/489452/lack-of-funding-forces-heartland-to-end-climate-denial-conference/?mobile=nc

The exchange perfectly encapsulated the public-relations disaster the Heartland Institute has created for itself over the last few weeks. The downfall started with an offensive billboard campaign on May 3, and ended with 11 companies pulling support for the organization — stripping 35 percent its of corporate funds overnight and leaving its financial future uncertain.

The dramatic drop in support was facilitated by the advocacy organization Forecast the Facts, which collected more than 150,000 signatures from people calling on corporate donors to end their relationship with Heartland. Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Verizon, Wisconsin Insurance Alliance, and the Credit Union National Association are the latest to announce that they will not fund the Heartland Institute, bringing the total number of defecting companies to 15.

This series of events built on an earlier incident in which Peter Gleick, a scientist with the Pacific Institute, faked his identity to acquire internal documents from the Heartland Institute. Those documents showed that the organization planned to secretly develop school curriculum to spread doubt about the causes of climate change. It also opened up a window to the organization’s donors, which were forced to make a decision about whether or not they wanted to be associated with Heartland’s tactics.

And then yesterday, the other shoe dropped. In his closing speech, Heartland President Joseph Bast announced that the organization does not have the money to continue putting on its hallmark climate conference — an event that had become a rallying point for an insulated group of climate disinformers

“I hope to see you at a future conference, but at this point we have no plans to do another [International Conference on Climate Change],” said Bast, explaining that Heartland was struggling to meet expenses.

The cancellation marks the end of an era — albeit a short era — for the oddball world of organized climate change denial.

The event was started in 2008 as a way to organize libertarians— many of whom believe that taking action on climate change would create a one-world government dominated by the United Nations.

Heartland tried hard to label the event a “science” conference. But the presentations were almost always political, peppered with anti-government rhetoric and conspiracy theories.

“We’re in a war. We’re in a war against our standard of living,” said Walt Cunningham, a former NASA astronaut, speaking in a morning session on Tuesday.

“There’s not a lot of science here,” said Scott Denning, an atmospheric scientist from Colorado State University who attended the event last year to present the so-called “warmist” case. Neither Denning nor any of the other 97 percent of climate scientists who say human activity is warming the planet presented at this year’s conference.

In fact, none of this year’s top speakers had any background in climate science. Instead, they spoke about the issues in highly conspiratorial terms.

Czech President Vaclav Klaus, a former economist who gave the keynote address on Monday, called environmentalism “identical to communism — identical, not similar.”

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), the featured keynote speaker for Tuesday, asked if we “need to put catalytic converters on our noses” by addressing heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere.

And following Sensenbrenner’s nonsensical remarks, Heartland brought up “special mystery guest”Lord Christopher Monckton, who admitted at the beginning of his speech that he has “no scientific qualification” to challenge climate science.He then performed a comedy routine in which he questioned the legitimacy of President Obama’s citizenship— a joke that brought the room to full applause.

These fringe views made even Heartland senior staffers very nervous. After the billboard debacle, theleader of Heartland’s Washington, D.C., office, Eli Lehrer, left the organization and brought six staff members with him, saying the campaign “didn’t reflect the seriousness which I want to bring to public policy.”

But Heartland’s leadership twisted the knife into their self-inflicted wound with a decision to keep repeating their extreme rhetoric in the lead-up to the conference — later calling Bill McKibben and Michael Mann “Madmen.”

The Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based think tank devoted to “promoting free-market solutions,” has been holding these confabs since 2008, sometimes twice a year. And the strategy appears to be working. At the end of day one, Morano—whose claim to fame is having broken the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth story that sank John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign—leads the gathering through a series of victory laps. Cap and trade: dead! Obama at the Copenhagen summit: failure! The climate movement: suicidal! He even projects a couple of quotes from climate activists beating up on themselves (as progressives do so well) and exhorts the audience to “celebrate!”

see also agenda 21,

http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate?page=full

6th annual 2011: inhofe keynote ducked for cold [severe OK drought? TX req fed help]

speakers: http://climateconference.heartland.org/about-2/speakers/

Heartland Institute communications director Jim Lakely:

Jim is the the director of communications at The Heartland Institute. Prior to joining Heartland, he was an ink-stained newspaperman for 16 years with many stops in "old media." Jim covered Congress and The White House during the George W. Bush administration for The Washington Times, and worked as a reporter, editorial writer and columnist for newspapers in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and California. He has appeared on the Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, C-Span, and many local and national talk radio shows to talk politics and policy.

James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News. (from TP site)

The Heartland Institute is convening a who’s-who of the global warming denial machine in Washington, DC over the next two days for the sixth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC6).

Seemingly content to let the world burn, the denizens of Denial-a-Palooza work year-round to sow doubt and confusion about climate change among the public - aided by Fox News and other friendly media outlets - so that no action is taken to limit heat-trapping gasses in the atmosphere. This event is attended by the best corporate front groups that polluter money can buy, and this year is no exception.

As in past years, the speakers and sponsors lists are dripping with oil money, and comprise nearly the full roster of groups who share a common interest - greenwashing dirty energy sources like oil and coal while simultaneously attacking the credibility of the world’s top climate scientists. The presentations will misrepresent the state of climate science, while the real action will take place backstage, as these groups coordinate their ongoing efforts to smear the reputation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (Note the intentional naming of this “ICCC” to sound like the IPCC.)

Let’s take a look at the funding of the sponsors of ICCC6:

17 of the 43 sponsors of the Heartland Institute’s Sixth International Conference on Climate Change, including the Heartland Institute itself, have collectively received over $46 million from either Scaife Foundations, Koch Foundations, or ExxonMobil and its foundation.

Most of these organizations, including many that choose not to disclose their funding sources, comprise the core of the industry attack on global warming science. See below for a complete breakdown of funding details:

Scaife Foundations (1998-2010): $28,557,000 ($12,205,000 more than 2010*)

Koch Foundations (1998-2009): $11,330,980 ($6,241,230 less than 2010)

ExxonMobil (1998-2010): $6,276,900 ($311,350 less than 2010)

Total Funding (1998-2010):   $46,164,880

*The Heritage Foundation, notably absent from the 2010 ICCC, is a sponsor again for the 2011 ICCC. Heritage has received $14,873,571 from industry sources.

SPONSORS

Here are the funding totals for organizations sponsoring Heartland’s conference that are known to have received support from oil-fueled ‘free market’ foundations:

*= past sponsor.

Accuracy in Media*

$3,120,000 – Scaife Foundations, 1998-2010

Americans For Prosperity*

$5,610,781 – Koch Foundations, 1998-2009

Americans for Tax Reform *

$60,000 – Koch Foundations, 1998-2009

$575,000 – Scaife Foundations, 1998-2010

Total: $635,500

Ayn Rand Institute*

$25,000 – Koch Foundations, 1998-2009

Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise (CDFE)*

$230,000 – ExxonMobil, 1998-2010

Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change*

$85,000 – Koch Foundations, 1998-2009

$100,000 – ExxonMobil, 1998-2010

$100,000 – Scaife Foundations, 1998-2010

Total: $285,000

Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT)*

$12,285 – Koch Foundations, 1998-2009

$582,000 – ExxonMobil, 1998-2010

$1,915,000 – Scaife Foundations, 1998-2010

Total: $2,509,285

Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)*

$421,746 – Koch Foundations, 1998-2009

$2,005,000 – ExxonMobil, 1998-2010

$2,575,000 – Scaife Foundations, 1998-2010

Total: $5,001,746

Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

$27,592 – Koch foundations, 1998-2009

$90,000 – Scaife foundations, 1998-2010

Total: $117, 592

George C. Marshall Institute*

$310,000 – Koch Foundations, 1998-2009 ($70,000 in 2009)

$840,000 – ExxonMobil, 1998-2010 (none in 2010)

$2,595,000 received from Scaife foundations, 1998-2010 ($230,000 in 2010)

Total: $3,435,310

Heartland Institute

$20,000 – Koch foundations, 1998-2009 (none in 2009)

$676,500 – ExxonMobil, 1998-2010 (none in 2010)

Total: $696,500

Heritage Foundation*

$3,708,571 – Koch foundations, 1998-2009 ($618,571 in 2009)

$670,000 – ExxonMobil, 1998-2010 ($50,000 in 2010)

$10,495,000 – Scaife foundations, 1998-2010 ($600,000 in 2010)

Total: $14,873,571

Independent Institute*

$50,000 – Koch foundations, 1998-2009 (none in 2009)

$85,000 – ExxonMobil, 1998-2010 (none in 2010)

Total: $135,000

Independent Women’s Forum (IWF)

$485,000 – Koch foundations, 1998-2009 ($150,000 in 2009)

$50,000 – ExxonMobil, 1998-2010 (none in 2010)

$1,850,000 – Scaife foundations, 1998-2010 (none in 2010)

Total: $2,385,000

Media Research Center (a.k.a. the Business & Media Institute)*

$15,005 – Koch foundations, 1998-2009 (none in 2009)

$362,500 – ExxonMobil, 1998-2010 (none in 2010)

$3,667,000 – Scaife foundations, 1998-2010 ($250,000 in 2010)

Total: $4 044 505

National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA)

$500,000 – Koch foundations, 1998-2009 ($25,000 in 2009)

$645,900 – ExxonMobil, 1998-2010 (none in 2010)

$1,575,000 – Scaife foundations, 1998-2010 ($100,000 in 2010)

Total: 2,720,900

Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)*

$20,000 – ExxonMobil, 1998-2000

Many of the conference’s other sponsors have been indirectly funded by industry, or are tied to “free market” foundations:

60 Plus Association*

Member of theCooler Heads Coalition.

African Center for Advocacy and Human Development*

No funding information.

Alternate Solutions Institute American Energy Freedom Center*

Received a $100,000 grant in 2008 from the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, which in turn has received over $1,080,000 from ExxonMobil, $153,000 from the Koch Foundations, and $2,270,000 from the Scaife Foundations.

American Policy Center*

No funding records.

American Tradition Institute

The ATI’s staff include Chris Horner, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and a leading force in climate denial.  Horner edits the Cooler Heads Coalition’s website.   The ATI has successfully sued [Correction: U.Va was already in the process of compiling the emails prior to ATI’s lawsuit against] the University of Virginia for Dr Michael Mann’s emails and are now attempting a similar legal action at NASA to get Dr James Hansen’s emails.

Australian Libertarian Society*

No funding records.

Business and Media Institute*

BMI is the sister organization to the large Media Research Center which has received $412,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

Cascade Policy Institute*

No funding records from Exxon, Koch, or Scaife. MediaMatters has compiled a list of other funders.

Centro de Investigaciones de Instituciones y Mercados de Argentina

No funding records.

Cathay Institute for Public Affairs*

No funding records.

Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation

According to a report by Think Progress, the Cornwall Alliance is a front group for the shadowy James Partnership. Both the James Partnership and the Cornwall Alliance are closely linked to the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), an anti-environmental group that is “funded by at least $542,000 from ExxonMobil, $60,500 from Chevron, and $1,280,000 from Scaife family foundations,

Energy Makes America Great Inc.

No record of funding from Exxon, Koch, or Scaife.

Freedom Foundation of Minnesota

No record of funding from Exxon, Koch, or Scaife.

Iceagenow.com

No record of funding from Exxon, Koch, or Scaife.

Istitulo Bruno Leoni (Italy)

No record of funding from Exxon, Koch, or Scaife.

International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)

Headed by Canadian Tom Harris (a speaker at this year’s conference), its personnel are the “who’s who” of international climate denial, including David Bellamy, Tim Ball, Julian Morris (Reason Foundation) and infamous Christopher Monckton.

Instituto Liberdade*

No funding information.

Instituto de Libre Empresa*

No funding information.

Institute for Liberty (IFL)*

A Tea Party group in the United States founded by Andrew Langer, an ex-employee of the Competetive Enterprise Institute (CEI).

Liberty Institute (India)

No funding information.

Lavoisier Group*

No funding records from Exxon, Koch, or Scaife.

From Sourcewatch: The group is closely associated with the Australian mining industry, and was founded in 2000 by Ray Evans, then an executive at Western Mining Corporation (WMC), who was also involved in founding the HR Nicholls Society and the Bennelong Society. Hugh Morgan, former WMC boss and head of the Business Council of Australia until 2005, delivered the group’s inaugural speech.

Mannkal Economic Education Foundation*

No funding information.

Source: Desmogblog (http://s.tt/197BK)

2010 cosponsors:

African Centre for Advocacy and

Human Development - Nigeria

Alternate Solutions Institute -

Pakistan

American Conservative Union

American Policy Center

Americans for Prosperity

Americans for Tax Reform

Atlas Economic Research

Foundation

Australian Libertarian Society -

Australia

Austrian Economics Center -

Austria

Ayn Rand Center

for Individual Rights

Carbon Sense Coalition - Australia

Cascade Policy Institute

Cathay Institute

for Public Affairs - China  ATLAS network

Center for the Defense

of Free Enterprise

Center for the Study of Carbon

Dioxide and Global Change

Centro de Investigaciones

de Instituciones y Mercados

de Argentina - Argentina

Citizens Alliance

for Responsible Energy

Climate Sceptics Party - Australia

Climate Science

Coalition of America

Committee For

a Constructive Tomorrow

Competitive Enterprise Institute

Cornwall Alliance for the

Stewardship of Creation

Doctors for Disaster Preparedness

European Coalition for Economic

Growth - Austria

Europäisches Institut für Klima und

Energie - Germany

Foundation for Economic Thinking

Free To Choose Network

Freedom Foundation of Minnesota

FreedomWorks

Frontier Centre for Public Policy -

Canada

Grassroot Institute of Hawaii

Hayek Institut - Austria

Hispanic Leadership Fund

Iceagenow.com

ICECAP

Illinois Policy Institute

The Independent Institute

Initiative for

Public Policy Analysis - Nigeria

Institute for Free Enterprise -

Germany

Institute of Public Affairs - Australia

Instituto Juan de Mariana - Spain

Instituto Liberdade - Brazil

Instituto De Libre Empresa - Peru

International Climate Science

Coalition - Australia

Istituto Bruno Leoni - Italy

Junkscience.com

The Lavoisier Group - Australia

The Leadership Institute

Liberales Institut - Switzerland

Liberty Institute - India

Lincoln Legal Foundation

John Locke Foundation

Mannkal Economic Education

Foundation - Australia

George C. Marshall Institute

Media Research Center

Minimal Government Thinkers, Inc.

• Philippines

National Center for

Public Policy Research

New Zealand Climate Science

Coalition - New Zealand

Oregon Institute of Science

and Medicine

Science & Environmental

Policy Project

Science and Public Policy Institute

Sovereignty International

Tennessee Center for Policy

Research

TS August

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=38&ved=0CGQQFjAHOB4&url=http%3A%2F%2Fuhaweb.hartford.edu%2Flgould%2FHeartland%2520Fourth%2520International%2520Conf_FullConferenceProgram.pdf&ei=jOoFUOeCBKu62gX0_oTPBQ&usg=AFQjCNFbk6NvMYX3dlO_kLjKucIbDbKNPg

DeSmogBlog found that the sponsors for the 2009 conference received over $47 million from oil companies and right-wing foundations.

The Heartland Institute is known for its continuous attacks on the scientific evidence for man-made climate change.  The Heartland Institute has received $240,000 from Philip Morris since 1993 and over $670,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

EU Pres Klaus (and pres of czech rep) repeat visit; at davos w/ blair, al and kofi (al got laught at being called expert)

hard to talk about GW in Eur b/c greens have taken place of commies (says intro)  economic degree (prague school of economics)   blue planet in green shackles (publ CEI

http://www.heartland.org/bin/media/newyork09/Audio/Sunday/Vaclav_Klaus.mp3

08 as well as 09

desmog bios of some speakers:

http://www.desmogblog.com/about-tv-weatherman-john-coleman-climate-skeptics-conference-speaker

pooley:

SINGER 83 yo , conf sponsors Heartland (chic) AFP, Am Taxpayer Reform, FoF, GCMI, CEI  all these review each other's work, conf eg endrun around legit,

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Conference_on_Climate_Change_%282009%29

Heartland Institute/International Conference on Climate Change (2009)

From SourceWatch

(Redirected from International Conference on Climate Change (2009))

The Heartland Institute 2009 International Conference on Climate Change, held March 8-10th in New York at the Marriott New York Marquis Times Square Hotel, brought together scientists, economists, legal experts, and other climate specialists to "confront the issue of global warming." These specialists, all climate change skeptics, aim to call attention "to new research that contradicts claims that Earth’s moderate warming during the 20th Century primarily was man-made and has reached crisis proportions." [1] The conference was organised and "sponsored" by the Heartland Institute, a U.S. think tank that in preceding years received substantial funding from Exxon for its work downplaying the significance of global warming.

Contents

[hide]

1 Funding the Conference

2 2009 conference rationale - building on 2008 and the NIPCC

3 Conference speakers

4 2009 conference speakers

5 Conference co-sponsors

6 Conference website

7 Articles and resources

7.1 Related SourceWatch articles

7.2 References

7.3 External resources

7.4 External articles

7.4.1 Heartland Institute Posts About the conference

7.4.2 Articles about the conference

Funding the Conference

On its conference website, the Heartland Institute states that "all of the event’s expenses will be covered by admission fees and individual and foundation donors to Heartland. No corporate sponsorships or dollars earmarked for the event were solicited or accepted."[2] However, it does not disclose which foundations are contributing to the conference.

While the admission fees are quite high, the Heartland Institute appears to be willing to subsidize the fees of anyone who signs their global warming petition. As described in the Guardian, "the generous souls at the Heartland Institute are offering a special 20% discount on the $720 registration fee. All you have to do to qualify is put your name to the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine's Global Warming Petition, which to date has been signed by 31,072 American scientists, 'including 9,021 with PhDs.'" [3]

Ahead of the conference DeSmog Blog compiled a tally on the funding sources of the Heartland Institute and all the groups listed as co-sponsors of the conference. They found that "over $47 million from energy companies and right-wing foundations, with 78% of that total coming from theScaife Family of foundations" in the period between 1985 and 2006. In their calculations, the contributors were[4]:

ExxonMobil (1998-2006): $6,199,000

Koch Foundations (1986-2006): $4,438,920

Scaife Foundations (1985-2006): $36,868,640

2009 conference rationale - building on 2008 and the NIPCC

The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change led to the production of the "Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change." While the "NIPCC enlisted several hundred scientists from more than 100 countries to work over five years to produce its series of reports, the NIPCC document is the work of 23 authors from 15 nations, some of them not scientists," said Juliet Eilperin of the Washington Post.[5] This report, edited by Fred Singer, alleged that "natural causes are very likely to be the dominant cause" of climate change and concluded that while anthropogenic sources of GHGs may produce some warming, "evidence shows they are not playing a significant role." [6] The validity of the NIPCC report has been highly questioned by RealClimate, whose scientists have labeled the report "disingenuous and misleading, if not outright dishonest." On their wiki site, they debunk the arguments, chapter by chapter, put forth by the NIPCC. [7]

2009's conference, with the theme "Global Warming Crisis: Cancelled," planned, as did the 2008 gathering, to call "attention to new research findings that contradict the conclusions of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report." [8]

In an interview conducted part way through the conference with NPR, New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin explained that "what I sense, they're realizing that they have such a varied array of scientific explanations for what is going on with the climate that they felt the need to ... square up their own story in some sense because otherwise they are in danger of losing credibility. What has caused this change? They're not gaining traction."[9] Revkin said that Russell Seitz, who had attended the 2008 conference[10], "felt stiffed and didn't really fit their script". 'He felt a strong sense that there is a political frame of the issue that supersedes the need for the science to be accurate. He was kind of frustrated," Revkin said.[9

Conference speakers

The conference was to focus on four tracks of panel discussions relating to climate change: Paleoclimatology, Climatology, Impact of Climate Change, and Economics and Politics. [11] The 2009 International Conference on Climate Change website includes three podcasts, one that gives a program overview and two others that preview two of the conference headliners, Christopher Monckton and Christopher Horner. [12]

2009 conference speakers

2009's speakers were to include:

Alexandre Aguiar[13]

Syun Akasofu: University of Alaska Fairbanks

J. Scott Armstrong: University of Pennsylvania

Dennis Avery of the Hudson Institute

Joseph L. Bast of the Heartland Institute

Cal Beisner

Christopher Booker[14]

Robert Bradley of the Institute for Energy Research

Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute

Gabriel Calzada[15]

Francisco Capella

Bob Carter : James Cook University (Australia)

Frank Clemente: Penn State University

John Coleman: KUSI-TV, San Diego

William Cotton: Colorado State University

Piers Corbyn [16]

Joe D’Aleo of the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project

David Douglass: University of Rochester

Terry Dunleavy of the International Climate Science Coalition

John Dale Dunn[17]

Don Easterbrook[18]

Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute

Christopher Essex: University of Western Ontario

David Evans[19]

Robert Ferguson of the Science and Public Policy Institute

Michelle Foss: University of Texas, Center for Energy Economics

Indur Goklany[20]

Fred Goldberg: Royal School of Technology (Sweden)

Stanley Goldenberg[21]

Laurence Gould: University of Hartford

William Gray: Colorado State University; is described by the Heartland Institute as a "leading researcher into tropical weather patterns."[22]

Kesten Green: Monash University

Kenneth P. Green

Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute

Howard Hayden of the University of Connecticut

Roger Helmer[23]

Craig Idso of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change

Roy Innis

Mike Jungbauer[24]

Sam Kazman of the Competitive Enterprise Institute

Richard Keen: University of Colorado

William Kininmonth: Former head of the Australian National Climate Center

David Kreutzer[25]

David Legates: University of Delaware

Jay Lehr of the Heartland Institute

Marlo Lewis of the Competitive Enterprise Institute

Richard Lindzen: Massachusetts Institute of Technology; is described by the Heartland Institute as "one of the world’s leading experts in dynamic meteorology, especially planetary waves."[22]

Keith Lockitch of the Ayn Rand Institute

Craig Loehle: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement

Anthony Lupo: University of Missouri

Howard Maccabee[26]

Thomas McClintock, Republican Congressman from California

Stephen McIntyre: University of Toronto; is described as the "primary author of Climate Audit, a blog devoted to the analysis and discussion of climate data. He is a devastating critic of the temperature record of the past 1,000 years, particularly the work of Michael E. Mann, creator of the infamous “hockey stick” graph. That graph--thoroughly discredited in scientific circles--supposedly proved that mankind is responsible for a sharp increase in greenhouse gases."[22]

Ross McKitrick: University of Guelph (Canada)

Patrick Michaels: University of Virginia

Barun Mitra

Christopher Monckton of the Science and Public Policy Institute

Marc Morano

Iain Murray[27]

Kevin Murphy: University of Chicago

Joanne Nova: Author, The Skeptics Handbook

Jim O’Brien: Florida State University

Tim Patterson: Carleton University (Canada)

Benny Peiser: Liverpool John Moores University (United Kingdom)

Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute (France)

Arthur Robinson of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine is described by Heartland as "the curator of a global warming petition signed by more than 32,000 American scientists, including more than 10,000 with doctorate degrees, rejecting the alarmist assertion that global warming has put the Earth in crisis and is caused primarily by mankind."[22]

Harrison Schmitt[28]

Joel M. Schwartz of the American Enterprise Institute

Tom Segalstad[29]

Nir Shaviv[30]

S. Fred Singer of the Science and Environmental Policy Project

Fred Smith: Competitive Enterprise Institute

Lawrence Solomon: National Post (Canada)

Willie Soon: Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

Roy Spencer: University of Alabama in Huntsville; Spencer is the principal research scientist and team leader on NASA's Aqua satellite. TRUish?

John Sununu

George Taylor: Oregon State University

James M. Taylor of the Heartland Institute

John Theon[31]

Brian Valentine: U.S. Department of Energy

Jan Veizer: University of Ottawa (Canada)

Anthony Watts: SurfaceStations.org

Conference co-sponsors

On its conference website, the Heartland Institute states that "all of the event’s expenses will be covered by admission fees and individual and foundation donors to Heartland. No corporate sponsorships or dollars earmarked for the event were solicited or accepted."[2] However, it does not disclose which foundations are contributing to the conference.

On its website, it lists co-sponsoring groups, as of January 20 2009, as being:[2]

Accuracy in Media

African Center for Advocacy and Human Development

Alternate Solutions Institute

American Policy Center

Americans for Prosperity

Atlas Economic Research Foundation

Australian Libertarian Society

Ayn Rand Institute

Business & Media Institute

Carbon Sense Coalition

Cascade Policy Center

Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change

Climate Strategies Watch

Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow

Competitive Enterprise Institute

Cornwall Alliance

Economic Thinking/E. Pluribus Unum Films

Freedom Foundation of Minnesota

Frontiers of Freedom

George Marshall Institute

The Heritage Foundation

IceAgeNow.com

International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project

Initiative for Public Policy Analysis

Institute for Private Enterprise

Institute of Public Affairs

Instituto De Libre Impresa

Instituto Liberdade

Instituto Bruno Leoni

International Climate Science Coalition

Liberales Institut

Liberty Institute

John Locke Foundation

Manhattan Libertarian Party

Mannkal Economic Foundation

Minimal Government Thinkers

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine

Public Interest Institute

Science and Public Policy Institute

Science and Environmental Policy Project

Sovereignty International

Young America's Foundation

Conference website

Website: http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/newyork09.html

Proceedings: http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/proceedings.html

Articles and resources

Related SourceWatch articles

Global warming skeptics

International Conference on Climate Change (2008)

Researching global warming skeptics

SourceWatch:Project:Creating Articles on Sponsors and Speakers at The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change

think tanks

References

↑ "The 2009 International Conference on Climate Change", Heartland Institute website, accessed January 2009.

↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 "Co-Sponsors", Heartland Institute, January 20, 2009.

↑ "Global warming sceptics show money talks in New York", Leo Hickman, The Guardian, January 19, 2009.

↑ "Heartland Institute's 2009 Climate Conference in New York: funding history of the sponsors", DeSmog Blog, February 24, 2004.

↑ "Global Warming Skeptics Insist Humans Not at Fault", Washington Post, March 4, 2008.

↑ "Even Skeptics Admit Global Warming is Real", David Biello and John Pavlus, Scientific American, January 2009.

↑ "Not the IPCC (“NIPCC”) Report", Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt, RealClimate Blog, November 2008.

↑ "Global Warming Facts", the Heartland Institute Global Warming page, January 2009.

↑ 9.0 9.1 "Climate Skeptics Gather In New York City", "Day to Day", NPR, March 9, 2009. (Link to audio file).

↑ Russell Seitz, "A Letter from the Heartland", Adamant (blog), October 21, 2008.

↑ "Conference Program", Heartland Institute website, accessed January 2009.

↑ "Conference Podcasts", Heartland Institute website, January 2009.

↑ Alexandre Aguiar, ""Dubious Connections between Global Warming and Extreme Weather Events", Presentation to the Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change (2009), March 9, 2009. (PowerPoint)

↑ Christopher Booker, "Remember the Poor: A Christian Perspective on Energy Rationing", Presentation to the Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change (2009), March 10, 2009.

↑ Gabriel Calzada, "Spain's New Economy: Boom and Bust of the Spanish Renewable Miracle", Presentation to the Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change (2009), March 9, 2009. (PowerPoint)

↑ Piers Corbyn, "What Does and Does Not Cause Climate Change", Presentation to the Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change (2009), March 10, 2009. (PowerPoint)

↑ John Dale Dunn, "Human Health Effects of Warming and Cooling", Presentation to the Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change (2009), March 10, 2009. (A copy of Dunn's presentation is not available).

↑ Don Easterbrook, "'Global Warming' Is Over: Geologic, Oceanographic, and Solar Evidence for Global Cooling in the Coming Decades", Presentation to the Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change (2009), March 10, 2009. (PowerPoint)

↑ "Carbon Dioxide Not Responsible for 20th Century Warming", Presentation to the Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change, March 9, 2009. (PowerPoint)

↑ Indur Goklany, "Climate Change Impacts", Presentation to the Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change (2009), March 9, 2009. (PowerPoint)

↑ Stanley Goldenberg, "Is There a Link between Global Warming and Hurricane Activity?", Presentation to the Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change (2009), March 9, 2009. (PowerPoint)

↑ 22.0 22.1 22.2 22.3 Dan Miller, "Astronaut Joins Global Warming Skeptics", Media Release, The Heartland Institute, January 2009.

↑ Nir Shaviv, "The EU Parliament", Presentation to the Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change (2009), March 10, 2009. (A copy of Dunn's presentation is not available).

↑ Mike Jungbauer, "Global Warming Science and Policymakers", Presentation to the Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change (2009), March 10, 2009. (PowerPoint)

↑ David Kreutzer, "Modeling Results on the Effects of Cap and Trade", Presentation to the Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change (2009), March 9, 2009. (PowerPoint).

↑ Howard Maccabee, "Untitles", Presentation to the Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change (2009), March 9, 2009. (PowerPoint)

↑ Iain Murray, "Tracing Alarmism's Methods Back to Their Roots", Presentation to the Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change (2009), March 10, 2009. (PowerPoint)

↑ Harrison Schmitt, "Climate Facts that Really Are Facts", Presentation to the Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change (2009), March 9, 2009. (Video download)

↑ Tom Segalstad, "Carbon Isotope Mass Balance Modeling of Atmospheric vs. Oceanic CO2 (PowerPoint)", Presentation to the International Conference on Climate Change, March 2009.

↑ Nir Shaviv, "New Solar-Climate Link and Implications for Our Understanding of Climate Change", Presentation to the Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change (2009), March 10, 2009. (A copy of Dunn's presentation is not available).

↑ John Theon, "Is Climate Change Driven by Mankind: My Personal Journey", Presentation to the Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change (2009), March 10, 2009. (Download Video)

External resource

External articles

Heartland Institute Posts About the conference

Joseph Bast, "Opening Remarks: 2008 International Conference on Climate Change", March 8, 2009.

Dan Miller,"2009 International Conference on Climate Change: Update #1", Media Release, March 9, 2009.

Dan Miller,"2009 International Conference on Climate Change: Update #2", Media Release, March 10, 2009.

Dan Miller, "2009 International Conference on Climate Change: Update #3", Media Release, March 11, 2009.

Dan Miller, "Climate Conference Ends On High Note", Heartland Perspectives, March 2009.

Articles about the conference

Kevin Grandia, "Research on the "sponsors" behind the Heartland's New York Climate Change Conference", DeSmog Blog, February 29, 2009.

Bob Burton, "The Monkeys and Their Organ Grinders", PR Watch.org, March 6, 2009.

Colby Beck, "A roomful of cynics: A look at the non-experts speaking at Heartland Institute's denialist sideshow", Grist, March 6, 2009.

Andrew Revkin, "Skeptics Question Warming, and Each Other", "Bot Earth" (blog), New York Times, March 8, 2009.

Peter Dykstra, "Media Mayhem: Deny-a-palooza: How an annual climate deniers' conference in New York reminds me of Jim Carrey in 'Dumb and Dumber'", Mother Nature Network, March 9, 2009.

Andrew C. Revkin, "Gathering of contrarians takes on 'climate alarm'", International Herald Tribune, March 9, 2009.

"Czech leader joins meeting of climate change deniers", Guardian, March 9, 2009.

"Climate Change Skeptics, Unite: Heartland Institute’s ‘Other’ Global Warming Gabfest", "Environmental Capital" (blog), Wall Street Journal, March 9, 2009.

Jim Efstathiou Jr., "Climate Skeptics Challenge Obama ‘Mainstream’ Science (Update1)", Bloomberg, March 9, 2009.

Peter Foster, "Heartland is keeping the lights on", Financial Post, March 07, 2009.

Peter Foster, "The crumbling case for global warming", Nation Post, March 10, 2009.

"Climate Skeptics Gather In New York City", "Day to Day", NPR, March 9, 2009. (Link to audio file).

Harry Fuller, "Denial as a political position," ZDNet blog "GreenTech Pastures," March 9, 2009.

Pete Chagnon, "The poor and the pocketbook - victims of global-warming alarmism," OneNewsNow, March 10, 2009.

Suzanne Goldenberg, "Meet the sceptics: Barack Obama may be worried about greenhouse gases - but not everyone is", Guardian, March 12, 2009.

Andrew Revkin, "No Skepticism on the Energy Gap", New York Times, March 11, 2009.

John H. Fund, "Warming to Cockburn and Vice Versa", Hawaii Reporter, March 11, 2009.

Marc Sheppard, "The Clear and Cohesive Message of the International Conference on Climate Change", American Thinker (blog), March 15, 2009.

Miranda Devine, "Climate sceptics fight tide of alarmism", Sydney Morning Herald, March 13, 2009.

Harold Brown, "Americans cool as activists cry wolf over global warming", The Daily Citizen (Georgia), March 13, 2009.

Christopher Booker, "Nobody listens to the real climate change experts", Telegraph.co.uk, March 16, 2009.

Ed Hiserodt, "CORE Leader Blasts Global-warming Alarmists," The New American, March 24, 2009.

Phil Richardson (Oklahoma state representative), "A questionable basis for energy legislation: Point of view, cap-and-trade debate," The Oklahoman "NewsOK" website, March 30, 2009.

TCS announcement

Hundreds of scientists to attend; conference organizers to challenge "myth of global warming crisis".

Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic and current President of the European Union, is scheduled to give the keynote address at the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change.

The conference is devoted to scientists and policymakers skeptical of human-induced global warming, and is intended in part as a counterpoint to the UN IPCC-organized climate conferences. It is being held March 8-10 in New York City.

Some of the many scientists scheduled to speak include:

Richard Lindzen, atmospheric physics, MIT

Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist, Hebrew University of Jerusalem

William Gray, atmospheric science, Colorado State University

Fred Singer, atmospheric science, University of Virginia

Tim Patterson, paleoclimatology, Carleton University

David Legates, Delaware State Climatologist

Syun Akasofu, University of Alaska, founder International Arctic Research Center,

Fred Goldberg, Secretary-General, Swedish Royal Institute of Technology

Appearing as well will be ex-US Senator and Apollo moonwalker Jack Schmitt, who also has a Ph.D in earth science.

The event is expected to draw 1,000 participants, double the size of the 2008 conference. It is being hosted by the Heartland Institute, a nonpartisan think tank. According to Heartland, the event is funded entirely from personal and institutional donors, with no corporate funding accepted.

DailyTech will be providing live coverage from the conference floor.

14 February 12 at 4:08pm

Fake science, fakexperts, funny finances, free of tax

Modern anti-science was created by the tobacco industry in the 1950s and then used against climate science, often by the same well-experienced think tanks and individuals.  Tobacco anti-science is strangely entangled with climate anti-science, as the attached report shows in detail involving Fred Singer's SEPP, Joseph Bast's Heartland, and more.

S. Fred Singer is President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), but has done almost all the work himself for 20 years., including help for tobacco in the early 1990s. Research for Weird Science sent me on a  trek through his and other IRS Form 990s, which unearthed many curiosities of strange governance, fakery and funny finances, all tax-free.

Singer claimed Frederick Seitz as Chairman for two years after his demise and 20 years after a Philip Morris staffer had written in 1989:

“Dr. Seitz is quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice.”

SEPP’s finances were curious.  SEPP paid no salaries, even for Singer’s 60-hour workweeks.  Money flowed oddly.  Asset trades often exceeded normal income and they accumulated to $1.5M, tax-free.   Then one money trail led to Heartland.

Heartland Institute’s Joseph Bast staunchly defended “Joe Camel,” the infamous campaign to addict younger children.  Heartland got tobacco funding for many years, along with a Philip Morris Board member.

Whitney Ball’s DONORS TRUST funded a major expansion of Heartland climate anti-science.  Singer collected old associates to help write “NonGovernmental International Panel on Climate Change“ (NIPCC) reports, filled with unsupported claims and long-refuted anti-science.

He was helped by Craig Idso, of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (CDCDGC), whose money flows also seem unusual.  Robert Ferguson’s Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) was a website and a  PO Box in a UPS store and he was actually a CSCDGC employee.

Under Jay Lehr and James Taylor, anti-science permeated Heartland’s Environment and Climate News (E&CN) sent mostly to elected officials.  Heartland incessantly touted its access and influence with such officials, but its tax forms claimed no lobbying.  It ran “fake science” conferences, paying for government staff attendance.  It sent money to foreign non-charity advocacy groups, sent anti-science handbooks to school boards and urged parents to complain.  It has been criticized in Nature and Science.

Free speech allows people to express opinions, even lie about facts, but tax-free operation is a revocable privilege.  Spreading factual untruths and confusion about smoking or climate science is neither research nor education in the public interest.

Read the report, at least the first 21 pages, backed by nearly 200 of detailed backup.

This report was scheduled to be published in a few days,  and by astonishing coincidence, just today we see Heartland Institute Exposed.  The report was done entirely from public sources, but today's new information is quite consistent and fills some holes.  However, the unnamed large Anonymous donor is now seen to be someone hiding behind DONORS TRUST, and some of the smaller ones dedicating funds appear in pp.57-59, with red itemizations. We also see some of the actual payments I had to infer.

03/11/12 CORRECTION:  p.58 omitted a DONORS CAPITAL item for 2008: “For media materials $100,000”, which should be added to various subtotals, making them consistent with the $4,610,000 reported on p.57, Fig. H.1.4.  H/T to Michael Fisher.

Attachment    Size

fake.pdf    4.99 MB

Desmogblog (http://s.tt/1982E)

14 February 12 at 2:13pm

Heartland Institute Exposed: Internal Documents Unmask Heart of Climate Denial Machine

Internal Heartland Institute strategy and funding documents obtained by DeSmogBlog expose the heart of the climate denial machine – its current plans, many of its funders, and details that confirm what DeSmogBlog and others have reported for years. The heart of the climate denial machine relies on huge corporate and foundation funding from U.S. businesses including Microsoft, Koch Industries, Altria (parent company of Philip Morris) RJR Tobacco and more.

We are releasing the entire trove of documents now to allow crowd-sourcing of the material. Here are a few quick highlights, stay tuned for much more.

-Confirmation that Charles G. Koch Foundation is again funding Heartland Institute’s global warming disinformation campaign. [Update: Apparently even the Koch brothers think the Heartland Institute's climate denial program is too toxic to fund. On Wednesday, Koch confirmed that it did not cut a check for the $200K mentioned in the strategy memo after all. A statement released on KochFacts.com and the charleskochfoundationfacts.org states that "…the Charles Koch Foundation provided $25,000 to the Heartland Institute in 2011 for research in healthcare, not climate change, and this was the first and only donation the Foundation made to the institute in more than a decade. The Foundation has made no further commitments of funding to Heartland.”]

Greenpeace’s Koch reports show the last time Heartland received Koch funding was in 1999.

The **January 2012 Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy** states:

“We will also pursue additional support from the Charles G. Koch Foundation. They returned as a Heartland donor in 2011 with a contribution of $200,000. We expect to push up their level of support in 2012 and gain access to their network of philanthropists, if our focus continues to align with their interests. Other contributions will be pursued for this work, especially from corporations whose interests are threatened by climate policies.”

-Heartland Institute’s global warming denial machine is chiefly – and perhaps entirely – funded by one Anonymous donor:

Our climate work is attractive to funders, especially our key Anonymous Donor (whose contribution dropped from $1,664,150 in 2010 to $979,000 in 2011 - about 20% of our total 2011 revenue). He has promised an increase in 2012…”

-Confirmation of exact amounts flowing to certain key climate contrarians.

“funding for high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist AGW message. At the moment, this funding goes primarily to Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), Fred Singer ($5,000 per month, plus expenses), Robert Carter ($1,667 per month), and a number of other individuals, but we will consider expanding it, if funding can be found.”

-As Brad Johnson reported today at ThinkProgress, confirmation that Heartland is working with David Wojick, a U.S. Energy Department contract worker and coal industry consultant, to develop a ‘Global Warming Curriculum for K-12 Schools.’

-Forbes and other business press are favored outlets for Heartland’s dissemination of climate denial messages, and the group is worried about maintaining that exclusive space. They note in particular the work of Dr. Peter Gleick:

“Efforts at places such as Forbes are especially important now that they have begun to allow high-profile climate scientists (such as Gleick) to post warmist science essays that counter our own. This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out.” (emphasis added)

Note the irony here that Heartland Institute – one of the major mouthpieces behind the debunked ‘Climategate’ email theft who harped about the suppression of denier voices in peer-reviewed literature – now defending its turf in the unscientific business magazine realm.

-Interesting mentions of Andrew Revkin as a potential ally worth “cultivating,” along with Judith Curry.[cf cointelpro atrazine flip attempts]

“Efforts might also include cultivating more neutral voices with big audiences (such as Revkin at DotEarth/NYTimes, who has a well-known antipathy for some of the more extreme AGW communicators such as Romm, Trenberth, and Hansen) or Curry (who has become popular with our supporters).”

-Confirmation that skeptic blogger Anthony Watts is part of Heartland’s funded network of misinformation communicators.

“We have also pledged to help raise around $90,000 in 2012 for Anthony Watts to help him create a new website to track temperature station data.”

Stay tuned for more details as DeSmogBlog and others dig through this trove of Heartland Institute documents. The Heartland Institute's legacy of evasion of this level of transparency and accountability has now been shattered.

Read the documents [all PDF (except one .doc)]:

January 2012 Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy

Minutes of January 17 board meeting (.doc)

Agenda for January 17, 2012 Board Meeting

Board Meeting Package January 17, 2012

Binder 1 (maybe overlap with above documents)

2012 Heartland Budget

2012 Heartland Fundraising Plan

2010 Heartland IRS Form 990 (public document)

Stay tuned… see also DeSmogBlog's Richard Littlemore's coverage.

**The Heartland Institute alleges that the 2012 climate strategy document is a "fake" and has threatened the DeSmogBlog with legal action. However, the organization has not provided any proof to support its allegations. We see no basis in fact or law for us to remove this document, and will leave it available in the public interest.

Related Profile(s) :

S. Fred Singer

Craig Idso

Bob Carter

Anthony Watts

The Heartland Institute

==

Modern anti-science was created by the tobacco industry in the 1950s and then used against climate science, often by the same well-experienced think tanks and individuals.  Tobacco anti-science is strangely entangled with climate anti-science, as the attached report shows in detail involving Fred Singer's SEPP, Joseph Bast's Heartland, and more.

S. Fred Singer is President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), but has done almost all the work himself for 20 years., including help for tobacco in the early 1990s. Research for Weird Science sent me on a  trek through his and other IRS Form 990s, which unearthed many curiosities of strange governance, fakery and funny finances, all tax-free.

Singer claimed Frederick Seitz as Chairman for two years after his demise and 20 years after a Philip Morris staffer had written in 1989:

“Dr. Seitz is quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice.”

SEPP’s finances were curious.  SEPP paid no salaries, even for Singer’s 60-hour workweeks.  Money flowed oddly.  Asset trades often exceeded normal income and they accumulated to $1.5M, tax-free.   Then one money trail led to Heartland.

Heartland Institute’s Joseph Bast staunchly defended “Joe Camel,” the infamous campaign to addict younger children.  Heartland got tobacco funding for many years, along with a Philip Morris Board member.

Whitney Ball’s DONORS TRUST funded a major expansion of Heartland climate anti-science.  Singer collected old associates to help write “NonGovernmental International Panel on Climate Change“ (NIPCC) reports, filled with unsupported claims and long-refuted anti-science.

He was helped by Craig Idso, of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (CDCDGC), whose money flows also seem unusual.  Robert Ferguson’s Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) was a website and a  PO Box in a UPS store and he was actually a CSCDGC employee.

Under Jay Lehr and James Taylor, anti-science permeated Heartland’s Environment and Climate News (E&CN) sent mostly to elected officials.  Heartland incessantly touted its access and influence with such officials, but its tax forms claimed no lobbying.  It ran “fake science” conferences, paying for government staff attendance.  It sent money to foreign non-charity advocacy groups, sent anti-science handbooks to school boards and urged parents to complain.  It has been criticized in Nature and Science.

Free speech allows people to express opinions, even lie about facts, but tax-free operation is a revocable privilege.  Spreading factual untruths and confusion about smoking or climate science is neither research nor education in the public interest.

Read the report, at least the first 21 pages, backed by nearly 200 of detailed backup.

This report was scheduled to be published in a few days,  and by astonishing coincidence, just today we see Heartland Institute Exposed.  The report was done entirely from public sources, but today's new information is quite consistent and fills some holes.  However, the unnamed large Anonymous donor is now seen to be someone hiding behind DONORS TRUST, and some of the smaller ones dedicating funds appear in pp.57-59, with red itemizations. We also see some of the actual payments I had to infer.

03/11/12 CORRECTION:  p.58 omitted a DONORS CAPITAL item for 2008: “For media materials $100,000”, which should be added to various subtotals, making them consistent with the $4,610,000 reported on p.57, Fig. H.1.4.  H/T to Michael Fisher.

Attachment    Size

fake.pdf    4.99 MB

Desmogblog (http://s.tt/1982E)

14 February 12 at 2:13pm

Heartland Institute Exposed: Internal Documents Unmask Heart of Climate Denial Machine

Internal Heartland Institute strategy and funding documents obtained by DeSmogBlog expose the heart of the climate denial machine – its current plans, many of its funders, and details that confirm what DeSmogBlog and others have reported for years. The heart of the climate denial machine relies on huge corporate and foundation funding from U.S. businesses including Microsoft, Koch Industries, Altria (parent company of Philip Morris) RJR Tobacco and more.

We are releasing the entire trove of documents now to allow crowd-sourcing of the material. Here are a few quick highlights, stay tuned for much more.

-Confirmation that Charles G. Koch Foundation is again funding Heartland Institute’s global warming disinformation campaign. [Update: Apparently even the Koch brothers think the Heartland Institute's climate denial program is too toxic to fund. On Wednesday, Koch confirmed that it did not cut a check for the $200K mentioned in the strategy memo after all. A statement released on KochFacts.com and the charleskochfoundationfacts.org states that "…the Charles Koch Foundation provided $25,000 to the Heartland Institute in 2011 for research in healthcare, not climate change, and this was the first and only donation the Foundation made to the institute in more than a decade. The Foundation has made no further commitments of funding to Heartland.”]

Greenpeace’s Koch reports show the last time Heartland received Koch funding was in 1999.

The **January 2012 Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy** states:

“We will also pursue additional support from the Charles G. Koch Foundation. They returned as a Heartland donor in 2011 with a contribution of $200,000. We expect to push up their level of support in 2012 and gain access to their network of philanthropists, if our focus continues to align with their interests. Other contributions will be pursued for this work, especially from corporations whose interests are threatened by climate policies.”

-Heartland Institute’s global warming denial machine is chiefly – and perhaps entirely – funded by one Anonymous donor:

Our climate work is attractive to funders, especially our key Anonymous Donor (whose contribution dropped from $1,664,150 in 2010 to $979,000 in 2011 - about 20% of our total 2011 revenue). He has promised an increase in 2012…”

-Confirmation of exact amounts flowing to certain key climate contrarians.

“funding for high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist AGW message. At the moment, this funding goes primarily to Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), Fred Singer ($5,000 per month, plus expenses), Robert Carter ($1,667 per month), and a number of other individuals, but we will consider expanding it, if funding can be found.”

-As Brad Johnson reported today at ThinkProgress, confirmation that Heartland is working with David Wojick, a U.S. Energy Department contract worker and coal industry consultant, to develop a ‘Global Warming Curriculum for K-12 Schools.’

-Forbes and other business press are favored outlets for Heartland’s dissemination of climate denial messages, and the group is worried about maintaining that exclusive space. They note in particular the work of Dr. Peter Gleick:

“Efforts at places such as Forbes are especially important now that they have begun to allow high-profile climate scientists (such as Gleick) to post warmist science essays that counter our own. This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out.” (emphasis added)

Note the irony here that Heartland Institute – one of the major mouthpieces behind the debunked ‘Climategate’ email theft who harped about the suppression of denier voices in peer-reviewed literature – now defending its turf in the unscientific business magazine realm.

-Interesting mentions of Andrew Revkin as a potential ally worth “cultivating,” along with Judith Curry.[cf cointelpro atrazine flip attempts]

“Efforts might also include cultivating more neutral voices with big audiences (such as Revkin at DotEarth/NYTimes, who has a well-known antipathy for some of the more extreme AGW communicators such as Romm, Trenberth, and Hansen) or Curry (who has become popular with our supporters).”

-Confirmation that skeptic blogger Anthony Watts is part of Heartland’s funded network of misinformation communicators.

“We have also pledged to help raise around $90,000 in 2012 for Anthony Watts to help him create a new website to track temperature station data.”

Stay tuned for more details as DeSmogBlog and others dig through this trove of Heartland Institute documents. The Heartland Institute's legacy of evasion of this level of transparency and accountability has now been shattered.

Read the documents [all PDF (except one .doc)]:

January 2012 Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy

Minutes of January 17 board meeting (.doc)

Agenda for January 17, 2012 Board Meeting

Board Meeting Package January 17, 2012

Binder 1 (maybe overlap with above documents)

2012 Heartland Budget

2012 Heartland Fundraising Plan

2010 Heartland IRS Form 990 (public document)

Stay tuned… see also DeSmogBlog's Richard Littlemore's coverage.

**The Heartland Institute alleges that the 2012 climate strategy document is a "fake" and has threatened the DeSmogBlog with legal action. However, the organization has not provided any proof to support its allegations. We see no basis in fact or law for us to remove this document, and will leave it available in the public interest.

Related Profile(s) :

S. Fred Singer

Craig Idso

Bob Carter

Anthony Watts

The Heartland Institute

==

Internal Heartland Institute strategy and funding documents obtained by DeSmogBlog expose the heart of the climate denial machine – its current plans, many of its funders, and details that confirm what DeSmogBlog and others have reported for years. The heart of the climate denial machine relies on huge corporate and foundation funding from U.S. businesses including Microsoft, Koch Industries, Altria (parent company of Philip Morris) RJR Tobacco and more.

We are releasing the entire trove of documents now to allow crowd-sourcing of the material. Here are a few quick highlights, stay tuned for much more.

-Confirmation that Charles G. Koch Foundation is again funding Heartland Institute’s global warming disinformation campaign. [Update: Apparently even the Koch brothers think the Heartland Institute's climate denial program is too toxic to fund. On Wednesday, Koch confirmed that it did not cut a check for the $200K mentioned in the strategy memo after all. A statement released on KochFacts.com and the charleskochfoundationfacts.org states that "…the Charles Koch Foundation provided $25,000 to the Heartland Institute in 2011 for research in healthcare, not climate change, and this was the first and only donation the Foundation made to the institute in more than a decade. The Foundation has made no further commitments of funding to Heartland.”]

Greenpeace’s Koch reports show the last time Heartland received Koch funding was in 1999.

The **January 2012 Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy** states:

“We will also pursue additional support from the Charles G. Koch Foundation. They returned as a Heartland donor in 2011 with a contribution of $200,000. We expect to push up their level of support in 2012 and gain access to their network of philanthropists, if our focus continues to align with their interests. Other contributions will be pursued for this work, especially from corporations whose interests are threatened by climate policies.”

-Heartland Institute’s global warming denial machine is chiefly – and perhaps entirely – funded by one Anonymous donor:

Our climate work is attractive to funders, especially our key Anonymous Donor (whose contribution dropped from $1,664,150 in 2010 to $979,000 in 2011 - about 20% of our total 2011 revenue). He has promised an increase in 2012…”

-Confirmation of exact amounts flowing to certain key climate contrarians.

“funding for high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist AGW message. At the moment, this funding goes primarily to Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), Fred Singer ($5,000 per month, plus expenses), Robert Carter ($1,667 per month), and a number of other individuals, but we will consider expanding it, if funding can be found.”

-As Brad Johnson reported today at ThinkProgress, confirmation that Heartland is working withDavid Wojick, a U.S. Energy Department contract worker and coal industry consultant, to develop a ‘Global Warming Curriculum for K-12 Schools.’

-Forbes and other business press are favored outlets for Heartland’s dissemination of climate denial messages, and the group is worried about maintaining that exclusive space. They note in particular the work of Dr. Peter Gleick:

“Efforts at places such as Forbes are especially important now that they have begun to allow high-profile climate scientists (such as Gleick) to post warmist science essays that counter our own. This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out.” (emphasis added)

Note the irony here that Heartland Institute – one of the major mouthpieces behind the debunked ‘Climategate’ email theft who harped about the suppression of denier voices in peer-reviewed literature – now defending its turf in the unscientific business magazine realm.

-Interesting mentions of Andrew Revkin as a potential ally worth “cultivating,” along with Judith Curry.[cf cointelpro atrazine flip attempts]

“Efforts might also include cultivating more neutral voices with big audiences (such as Revkin at DotEarth/NYTimes, who has a well-known antipathy for some of the more extreme AGW communicators such as Romm, Trenberth, and Hansen) or Curry (who has become popular with our supporters).”

-Confirmation that skeptic blogger Anthony Watts is part of Heartland’s funded network of misinformation communicators.

“We have also pledged to help raise around $90,000 in 2012 for Anthony Watts to help him create a new website to track temperature station data.”

Stay tuned for more details as DeSmogBlog and others dig through this trove of Heartland Institute documents. The Heartland Institute's legacy of evasion of this level of transparency and accountability has now been shattered.

Read the documents [all PDF (except one .doc)]:

January 2012 Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy

Minutes of January 17 board meeting (.doc)

Agenda for January 17, 2012 Board Meeting

Board Meeting Package January 17, 2012

Binder 1 (maybe overlap with above documents)

2012 Heartland Budget

2012 Heartland Fundraising Plan

2010 Heartland IRS Form 990 (public document)

Stay tuned… see also DeSmogBlog's Richard Littlemore's coverage.

**The Heartland Institute alleges that the 2012 climate strategy document is a "fake" and has threatened the DeSmogBlog with legal action. However, the organization has not provided any proof to support its allegations. We see no basis in fact or law for us to remove this document, and will leave it available in the public interest.

Related Profile(s) :

S. Fred Singer

Craig Idso

Bob Carter

Anthony Watts

The Heartland Institute

Attachment    Size

2012 Climate Strategy.pdf    96.54 KB

Minutes of January 17 meeting.doc    50.84 KB

Board Meeting Package January 17.pdf    7.47 KB

Agenda for January 17 Meeting.pdf    8.49 KB

Binder1.pdf    67.68 KB

(1-15-2012) 2012 Heartland Budget.pdf    126.68 KB

(1-15-2012) 2012 Fundraising Plan.pdf    91.32 KB

2010_IRS_Form_990.pdf    2.7 MB

Desmogblog (http://s.tt/197zO

=

It wasn’t just the billboards: How activists brought down the Heartland Institute

By Daniel Souweine

It’s been a rough few weeks for the Heartland Institute, the “intellectual” nexus of the fossil fuel-powered machine that disparages climate science in the United States. Nineteen corporations have pulled more than $1 million in expected funding for the institute, leading President Joe Bast to ask attendees at the recent Heartland climate-denial conference whether they had a “rich uncle” who could help out. Seriously

At a time when most news about climate change is bad, Heartland’s decline has been a rare bright spot. How did it come about? In the reductive rendering of the mainstream media, the narrative has become that Heartland simply overplayed its hand by launching a billboard campaign comparing people who believe in global warming to the Unabomber, one of the single dumbest PR moves in recent history. Others have gone deeper, pointing out that Heartland has been painting itself into the crazy corner for a long time, and its lies were bound to catch up with it eventually. In that view, Heartland’s demise was essentially inevitable.

The infamous Unabomber billboard

While these narratives have elements of truth — the billboards were incredibly stupid, and Heartland has been lying for a long time — neither offers a full explanation because both deemphasize the crucial role of citizen action. Simply put, the post-billboard exodus of Heartland’s corporate donors would have been neither as big nor as fast if not for the actions of thousands of everyday Americans calling those donors to account. Indeed, it might not have happened at all.

For those who haven’t been closely following the saga, here is the basic chronology. In February, documents containing a list of Heartland funders were leaked to a number of bloggers by climate scientist Peter Gleick, who risked his professional reputation to expose the sources of Heartland’s support. Two days later, the organization I work for, Forecast the Facts, launched a campaign calling on all corporate funders of Heartland to withdraw their support, with our initial focus on General Motors. Within a week, more than 20,000 people, including 10,000 GM owners, had signed on. After adding their names to the effort, those citizen-activists then called GM, posted hundreds of comments on GM’s Facebook page, uploaded photos of themselves with their GM cars, showed up at events where GM’s CEO was speaking, and generally made it clear that they were extremely upset about GM’s Heartland association. After weeks of pressure, including considerable media coverage, GM pulled its support on March 28 — more than a month before the now infamous billboard went up.

Forecast the Facts isn’t an established player; our ability to influence General Motors was not due to our reputation. It was entirely the result of our active members, who organized around an idea and spoke in a louder voice than any single person or institution could.

Because GM’s pullout happened before Heartland’s Unabomber messaging fiasco — a key point that’s been overlooked by many media outlets — it offers the clearest demonstration of how citizen activism can impact corporations. There is literally nothing more valuable to a public-facing company like General Motors than its brand. And in the wake of the government bailout, GM has a great deal invested in building its environmental identity. Exhibit A: The Chevy Volt. Twenty thousand customers and potential customers pissed off about GM’s ties to climate-change denial represented a real threat to GM’s image makeover. Which is why GM’s CEO agreed to review the matter personally, and eventually decided that the company’s 20-year relationship with Heartland was just not worth the potential brand damage.

In the weeks following GM’s announcement, Forecast the Facts staff, together with partners at Greenpeace, contacted the rest of Heartland’s corporate donors to ask why they were still supporting climate-change denial. In doing so, we made clear that we were speaking on behalf of the 20,000 people who had signed on to the campaign. And our questions sparked conversations within many of those companies about whether the lobbying that Heartland did for them was worth the risk to their brands.

Then came the billboards. The companies that had already been thinking about leaving because of the aforementioned public pressure immediately did so. Another 150,000 people joined our campaign through groups including 350.org, SumOfUs.org, the League of Conservation Voters, and the Sierra Club. And again, these people did more than just sign a petition. Thousands posted on company Facebook pages and chipped in to fund billboards calling out remaining Heartland holdouts, hundreds made phone calls to corporate headquarters, and dozens showed up in person to protest Heartland’s conference. All of those actions sent a message to Heartland’s remaining donors: There are a lot of people who care about this issue, and your brand is at risk. In response, corporate supporters have continued to scurry for the exits.

I’ve asked a number of people why citizen activism tends to get short shrift, and I’ve gotten a lot of thoughtful responses. One of them stuck out as the most likely explanation: People like the idea that Heartland carried within it the seeds of its own destruction — that is, Heartland consists of a bunch of unhinged conspiracy theorists who mislead the public for a living, and they were destined to eventually destroy themselves because scientific truth inevitably wins. While that teleology is attractive, it ignores the fact that the truth only wins when enough people stand up on its behalf.

Institutions like Heartland don’t fail just because they lie to the public. If that were true, Heartland would have disintegrated a long time ago, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce would be defunct, and the corporate-funded campaign to discredit science would no longer hinder our societal response to the climate threat. Institutions like Heartland only crumble when people speak up and say they are tired of being lied to, and provide a credible threat to whomever makes the misinformation possible — in this case, hypocritical corporate donors that profess to care about climate change while simultaneously supporting a group dedicated to the exact opposite purpose.

A shift in cultural attitudes and attendant policy changes will only come when enough people consistently, loudly, and unrepentantly reject climate denial and demand action. So when everyday people do exactly that, and their actions make an impact, they deserve to be credited. We need to reinforce the behavior that is our only hope for real progress on climate change.

Daniel Souweine directs the climate and energy organizing project at Citizen Engagement Lab, which recently launched ForecastTheFacts.org, a campaign to push back against climate-change denial.

top 28 skeptic funders http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/30/companies-block-action-climate-change/print

Top US companies shelling out to block action on climate change

Analysis of 28 companies finds cases of support for thinktanks that misrepresent climate science, including Heartland Institute

Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent

guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 30 May 2012 13.49 EDT

US oil and Energy major companies lobby in Washington against green policies ( lobbyist )

Oil company heads during the US Senate finance hearing on oil and gas tax incentives on 11 May 2011. pix

Some of America's top companies are spending heavily to block action on climate change or discredit climate science, despite public commitments to sustainable and green values, a new report has found.

An analysis of 28 Standard & Poor 500 publicly traded companies by researchers from the Union of Concerned Scientists exposed a sharp disconnect in some cases between PR message and less visible activities, with companies quietly lobbying against climate policy or funding groups which work to discredit climate science.

The findings are in line with the recent expose of the Heartland Institute. Over the years, the ultra-conservative organisation devoted to discrediting climate science received funds from a long list of companies which had public commitments to sustainability.

The disconnect in this instance was especially stark in the researchers' analysis of oil giants ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil, and the electricity company DTE energy.

But even General Electric Company, which ranks climate change as a pillar of its corporate policy on its website, had supported trade groups and thinktanks that misrepresent climate science, the researchers found.

Caterpillar Inc, despite its public commitment to sustainability, also worked behind the scenes to block action on climate change. The company spent more than $16m (£10.3m) on lobbying during the study, with nearly five times as much of that spent lobbying to block climate action than on pro-environmental policies.

Other big corporate players were fairly consistent with their public image. Nike and NRG Energy Inc lobbied in support of climate change policy and supported conservation groups.

Peabody Energy Corporation,which produces coal, was ranked the most obstructionist of any of the companies. It spent more than $33m to lobby Congress against environmental measures and supporting trade groups and think tanks which spread disinformation about climate science, the researchers found.

"The thing we found most surprising in doing this research is just how all 28 companies expressed concern about climate change," said Francesca Grifo who heads the UCS scientific integrity programme. "But when we took a deeper look we found that a lot of the actions they took weren't connected to the messages."

The result of the disconnect was growing confusion about climate science, the researchers said. That made it more difficult to push for environmental protections.

The study was focused on the years 2009 and 2010, and looked at the companies' responses to moves by the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate carbon emissions and the failed attempt by Congress to pass a climate change law

It also looked at lobbying and political contributions surrounding the 2010 referendum to overturn California's climate change regulations.

But the researchers acknowledged that they were handicapped by a lack of transparency about corporate donations and lobbying, which made it difficult to determine exactly how companies were trying to exert political influence.

"Given the inconspicuous ways in which companies can utilize supposedly independent groups to further their own agendas, the funding of industry groups is an important pathway through which corporations influence the national climate conversation without accountability," the analysis said.

Today, behind closed doors in Charlotte, North Carolina, legislators from 15 states will meet with the oil and gas industry to discuss so-called “model legislation” as part of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). The result could be laws that handicap renewable energy targets — while creating loopholes for fossil fuels, written directly by the oil and gas industry itself.

ALEC has faced backlash recently for its role in crafting Florida’s Stand Your Ground laws. Now the organization is taking the same secretive approach to kill renewable energy development across the country.

Oil and gas corporations have a very strong role in politics through groups like Americans For Prosperity, American Petroleum Institute, and, of course, ALEC. Four of the largest oil and gas corporations and two of the most profitable U.S. corporations overall, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, and BP, sit on ALEC’s task forces. And so today, according to documents posted by Common Cause, representatives from these and other energy groups will discuss potential legislation that would undermine clean energy standards and limit regulations of polluting industries.

The agenda items illustrate ALEC’s objectives. An economist from the oil lobby American Petroleum Institute leads a discussion on oil and gas prices, and a few of the panels include, “The Dirty Truth Behind Reusable Bags” and “Resolution Supporting a Reasonable Compliance Timeline and Economywide Impact Study of EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Rule.” Peabody Energy — one of the largest coal companies in the world — will give the presentation on “Regulation Through Litigation Of Greenhouse Gases Is Unsound Public Policy.”

ALEC already benefits from special exemption from some state laws: For example, South Carolina, Indiana, and Colorado have specifically exempted ALEC from lobbying status.

The oil industry’s astroturfing does not end with ALEC. Heartland Institute, part of the consortium of ultra-conservative think tanks leading a broad attack on clean energy, will also speak at ALEC’s meeting. Americans For Prosperity, funded by money from the Koch brothers, is also involved in Big Oil’s PR campaign against clean energy.

We have already seen oil dominating election ad spending this year, with well over $24 million spent by groups like Americans for Prosperity and American Energy Alliance since January. More than 80 percent of election year attack ads have focused on energy — all of them thoroughly debunked.

GM pulls out Unabomber billboard  http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/may/04/heartland-institute-global-warming-murder?INTCMP=SRCH

microsoft maybe out, several insurance co's, no apology:

experts defect?

Their website also lists as “Heartland Experts” many of the most prominent advocates of climate science denial: John Christy, Joseph D’Aleo, Myron Ebell, Richard Lindzen, Bjorn Lomborg, Phelim McAleer, Ann McElhinney, Patrick Michaels, Steve Milloy, Lord Christopher Monckton, Marc Morano, Benny Peiser [bailed?] , Ian Plimer, Harrison Schmitt, Fred Singer, Fred Smith, Roy Spencer, Anthony Watts, and, last but not least, Roger Pielke.

Today, behind closed doors in Charlotte, North Carolina, legislators from 15 states will meet with the oil and gas industry to discuss so-called “model legislation” as part of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). The result could be laws that handicap renewable energy targets — while creating loopholes for fossil fuels, written directly by the oil and gas industry itself.

ALEC has faced backlash recently for its role in crafting Florida’s Stand Your Ground laws. Now the organization is taking the same secretive approach to kill renewable energy development across the country.

Oil and gas corporations have a very strong role in politics through groups like Americans For Prosperity, American Petroleum Institute, and, of course, ALEC. Four of the largest oil and gas corporations and two of the most profitable U.S. corporations overall, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, and BP, sit on ALEC’s task forces. And so today, according to documents posted by Common Cause, representatives from these and other energy groups will discuss potential legislation that would undermine clean energy standards and limit regulations of polluting industries.

The agenda items illustrate ALEC’s objectives. An economist from the oil lobby American Petroleum Institute leads a discussion on oil and gas prices, and a few of the panels include, “The Dirty Truth Behind Reusable Bags” and “Resolution Supporting a Reasonable Compliance Timeline and Economywide Impact Study of EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Rule.” Peabody Energy — one of the largest coal companies in the world — will give the presentation on “Regulation Through Litigation Of Greenhouse Gases Is Unsound Public Policy.”

ALEC already benefits from special exemption from some state laws: For example, South Carolina, Indiana, and Colorado have specifically exempted ALEC from lobbying status.

The oil industry’s astroturfing does not end with ALEC. Heartland Institute, part of the consortium of ultra-conservative think tanks leading a broad attack on clean energy, will also speak at ALEC’s meeting. Americans For Prosperity, funded by money from the Koch brothers, is also involved in Big Oil’s PR campaign against clean energy.

We have already seen oil dominating election ad spending this year, with well over $24 million spent by groups like Americans for Prosperity and American Energy Alliance since January. More than 80 percent of election year attack ads have focused on energy — all of them thoroughly debunked.

http://eenews.net/public/climatewire/2012/05/07/2

Exxon pulls out:

http://www.iwatchnews.org/2008/09/30/3047/global-warming-heated-denials

New leadership

Over the past few years, the Heartland Institute of Chicago has emerged as the lead organizer of global warming skepticism. Indeed, it was Heartland that organized the gathering of hundreds of skeptics in New York in March that featured comedian Slagle as well as scientists, lobbyists, and nonprofit groups.

A think tank devoted to reducing the size of government, Heartland received more than $670,000 from ExxonMobil from 1998-2006, before the company stopped funding it in 2007. But Dan Miller, executive vice president of the Heartland Institute, called its funding from ExxonMobil “pocket change.”

“We can live without Exxon’s contribution just fine,” Miller said.

At its March conference, Heartland organizers made a point to say that no corporate funding financed the event. Prominent speakers at the conference included the libertarian Cato Institute’s Patrick Michaels, Willie Soon of the Marshall Institute, and Václav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic.

The event’s closing speech was given by ABC News reporter John Stossel, who gave the audience pointers on how to better sell their arguments to the media. (See our blog post in July about Stossel’s speech at the conference.) Stossel said he wasn’t paid for his speech, though the Heartland Institute did make a $4,750 donation to the Wellfleet Conservation Trust on his behalf.

Presiding over the conference was Heartland Institute president Joseph Bast. A former socialist turned conservative-libertarian, Bast once wrote a piece for the American Conservative Union Foundation titled “Why I am a Conservative,” in which he described being hired in 1984 at the age of 26 by David Padden, owner of an investment securities firm in Chicago, to start Heartland.

David Padden, a Chicago bond trader, is listed as a founding director in Heartland’s Articles of Incorporation. He has also been a director of libertarian think tank the Cato Institute, the anti-regulation Citizens for a Sound Economy (now known as FreedomWorks), and the Acton Institute, which “integrates Judeo-Christian truths with free market principles.”

Bast’s article on conservatism went on to reminisce about his time as an undergraduate at the University of Chicago, where he majored in economics and joined the libertarian movement.

Numerous news articles about Bast have described him as a graduate in economics from the University of Chicago. But in actuality, Bast did not receive a degree from the school. According to degree auditors The Student Clearinghouse, Bast enrolled in the school from 1976 to 1984 but never obtained his bachelor’s degree. Reached by e-mail, Bast said that he left the University of Chicago in 1984, 11 weeks before graduating, to start Heartland.

Finding new funders

Heartland’s Miller said thatless than 5 percent of the institute’s $6 million budget comes from energy companies. Its website states that in 2007, it received 71 percent of its income from foundations, 16 percent from corporations, and 11 percent from individuals.

Heartland, like many nonprofits, does not disclose its funders and funding amounts.

Miller said individuals associated with Heartland had been harassed, so the group will no longer disclose individual donors. Older documents from the Institute show that it has received donations from companies including the Philip Morris Management Corp., Chevron USA, the National Coal Association, the Brown & Williamson Tobacco corporation, Ford Motors, and General Motors.

Also touted were conservative family foundations, including the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Walton Family Foundation, and the Barre Seid Foundation. The Bradley Foundation has donated at least $500,000 to Heartland from 2003-2007, based on data from the Foundation Center, a nonpartisan group that compiles records of nonprofits. The Walton Family Foundation also donated at least $290,000 from 2003-2006, and the Barbara and Barre Seid Foundation donated $176,000 in 2004.

Conservative family foundations have long served as a key source of funding for groups that deny the prevailing global warming science, and they seem to be increasing their largesse as ExxonMobil bows out.

A survey of global warming skeptic groups shows that family foundations have increased their donations steadily from 2004-2006. The Charles G. Koch and the Claude R. Lambe Charitable foundations, run by the Koch Family Foundations, both show increases in donations over the years to global warming skeptics. The foundations are funded through Koch Industries, a $110 billion corporation that works in petroleum, chemicals, fibers and polymers, and commodity and financial trading and services.

In 2004 the Koch Foundation donated about $350,000 to such groups, but in 2006, it donated $5.3 million. Likewise, the Lambe Foundation increased its funding to such groups from $1.4 million in 2004 to $2.6 million in 2006.

The Sarah Scaife Foundation, run by the heirs to the Mellon banking, oil, and industrial fortune, also increased its funding from $3.9 million to skeptic groups in 2004 to $4.3 million in 2006.

The total donations in the three years from 2004-2006 show that the Scaife/Carthage Foundations donated $15.2 million to such groups; the Bradley Foundation has donated $11 million, the Koch Foundation $6.7 million, the Lambe Foundation $6.2 million, and the Templeton Foundation $4.2 million. Together, these amounts from just 2004, 2005, and 2006, far exceed the donations from ExxonMobil over the past decade.

GM pulls out

GM Discontinues Funding Of Climate-Denial Think Tank Heartland Institute | “General Motors has decided to discontinue funding of the Heartland Institute,” Climate One reports. “GM spokesman Dave Barthmuss confirmed the move today.” The Heartland Institute is a crucial node in the fossil-fueled propaganda campaign to deny the threat of manmade climate change. When first asked about its contributions to the anti-science organization, a GM spokesman called the group “careful and considerate,” which led to an outcry from ten thousand GM owners, including drivers of the innovative Chevy Volt.

One in a series of posts about the Heartland Institute’s inner workings, from internal documents acquired by ThinkProgress Green. ThinkProgress is among several publications to have published documents attributed to the Heartland Institute and sent to us from an anonymous and then unknown source. The source later revealed himself. Heartland Institute has issued several press releases claiming that one document (“2012 Climate Strategy”) is fake and asserting other claims regarding the other documents. ThinkProgress has taken down the “2012 Climate Strategy” document as it determines the document’s authenticity.

http://thinkprogress.org/green/issue/

By Josh Silver, CEO

This week, climate blogs including DeSmogBlog and ThinkProgress Green uncovered a leaked document precious to public interest advocates: a confidential memo and fundraising plan from the “conservative” Heartland Institute that lists its corporate donors, as well as the group’s strategic plans.

Heartland is one of many so-called “conservative” think tanks that “promote[s] free-market solutions to social and economic problems.” The document exposes what everyone knows, but is rarely proven: that Heartland and other “free-market” think tanks are nothing but lobbying vehicles for the largest corporations and billionaires who own them.These groups were the lead actors in the D.C. dramas that killed consumer protections that could have prevented the banking crisis, the Gulf oil spill, tax breaks for millionaires, and countless other affronts against America’s middle class. They are the secret agents artfully promoting the agendas of Big Insurance, Big Pharma, Big Phone and Cable, and anyone else who ponies up the cash. The leaked documents even admit that Heartland’s funders “want project-specific proposals”

Real conservative Americans should be seriously pissed off about this. Think tanks like Heartland falsely brand themselves as conservative while blindly espousing a free market free for all that history proves — over and over and at extreme cost to society — as untenable: a fig leaf that covers their real goal of destroying any consumer protections that could hurt profitmaking and the consolidation of wealth into the hands of billionaires. Reporters and pundits hear this: they are corporate, not conservative think tanks.

Polls show that conservatives are already outraged at how Big Money buys laws and the politicians who vote for them. Conservatives should be equally outraged that these think tanks and corporate-pawn politicians who do their bidding are co-opting their conservative brand to undermine the public interest. A great video from the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) last week shows Tea Partiers and Occupiers agreeing that crony capitalism is the issue that unifies them.

In the big scheme of things, Heartland Institute is a small player, with an annual budget of just $6 million.Heritage Foundation rakes in $75 million a year to shill for corporations; American Enterprise Institute, around $30 million, and the list goes on. What the leaked documents prove is what everyone in Washington knows: most Washington think tanks are a who’s who of the major corporations that own American democracy. And they are the same corporations that are increasingly buying favor at liberal institutions like the NAACP and Sierra Club.

This problem is but one piece of the larger crisis facing America in 2012: the capture of government — and both major parties — by well-heeled special interests. While we would all like a simple fix, the reality is that the solution is more complex. We must advance a range of reforms: from limiting super PACS, campaign spending and contributions to requiring full transparency of all political spending, including think tanks like these. From blocking the “revolving door” of politicians and K Street, to fixing the gerrymandering of congressional districts. From increasing voter participation to fixing antiquated legislative and election rules like the filibuster and the electoral college.

Complex, yes, but a common sense reform agenda is emerging that must be foisted upon our nation’s leaders with the brute political cudgel of pure populism: the same kind that ushered in the greatest political triumphs dating back to the birth of the republic. No, America, our leaders will not fix this problem out of the goodness of their hearts. If we want the republic to survive and thrive, it’s up to us to force them.

This article originally appeared in the Huffington Post.

bast author of memo? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shawn-lawrence-otto/why-is-heartland-institut_b_1311208.html

==

DOI scientist spreads disinfo:

According to one of the documents that came out in last week's scandal, the Heartland Institute plans to pay a federal scientist for his contributions to an annual climate-denial report. The proposed 2012 budget for the institute is one of the more interesting things to come out of the Heartland documents that were passed around the internet, as it includes a $1,000-per-month payment to a Department of Interior employee.

Posted on DeSmogBlog last week, the budget includes a monthly stipend for Indur Goklany, who serves as a senior adviser in the office of policy analysis at the Department of Interior. The document indicates that the money is compensation for authoring a chapter on "economics and policy" for the "Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change," an annual paper that Heartland and other climate deniers release in response to the reports from the actual, United Nations-sanctioned scientific panel known as the IPCC.

Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), the ranking member of the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, on Wednesday requested a Natural Resources Committee hearing to investigate whether this payment violates ethics rules at the DOI. Greenpeace also requested an investigation into this in a letter sent to DOI Secretary Ken Salazar on Tuesday. In it, the group notes that the ethics guidelines for federal employees state that they "generally may not receive pay for teaching, speaking and writing that relates to [their] official duties."

The Heartland funding wouldn't be the first time Goklany has worked with free-market think-tanks. According to his website, Goklany has also authored three books published by the Cato Institute and has written for the Reason Foundation and the Fraser Institute, three libertarian think-tanks.

Adam Fetcher, a spokesman for DOI, told Mother Jones that the department is reviewing the matter.

The Heartland Institute, the libertarian thinktank whose project to undermine science lessons for schoolchildren was exposed this week, faces new scrutiny of its finances – including its donors and tax status.

The Guardian has learned of a whistleblower complaint to the Internal Revenue Service about Heartland's 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status.

There was also a call from a group of climate scientists who have personally been on the receiving end of attacks from Heartland and bloggers funded by the thinktank, and whose email was posted online after a notorious 2009 hack, for Heartland to "recognise how its attacks on science and scientists have poisoned the debate about climate change policy," in a letter made available exclusively to the Guardian.

The unauthorised release of internal documents indicated Heartland had received $14m over several years from a single anonymous donor as well astobacco and liquorcompanies and corporations pledged to social responsibility, including the General Motors Foundation.

The release of the donors' list led a number of environmental organisations to demand GM, which gave $30,000, and Microsoft, which gave $59,908 in free software, to sever their ties with a thinktank that has a core mission of discrediting climate science.

An online petition on Friday criticised GM for taking the auto industry bailout and using taxpayer funds to a thinktank spreading what they say is climate misinformation. GM has admitted funding Heartland, pointing out that the money was for its work on health issues, not climate change.

"While General Motors has a mixed record on global warming, lately they've been doing all the right things, like investing heavily in the electric Chevy Volt. At the same time, they've been kept afloat by American taxpayers through a massive bailout. That means our tax dollars are ending up in the hands of the Heartland Institute," the petition said.

Others are focusing on Heartland's support from the tobacco industry as well as major health and pharmaceutical companies for a thinktank which has opposed smoking bans and healthcare reform.

John Mashey, a retired computer scientist and Silicon Valley executive, said he filed a complaint to the IRS this week that said Heartland's public relations and lobbying efforts violated its non-profit status.

Mashey said he sent off his audit, the product of three months' research, just a few hours before the unauthorised release of the Heartland documents.

Mashey said in a telephone interview that the complaint looked at the activities of Heartland and two other organisations that have been prominent in misinforming the public about climate change, the Science and Environmental Policy Project, run by Fred Singer, and the Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, run by Craig Idso. Both men were funded by Heartland, with Idso receiving $11,600 per month and Singer $5,500 a month, according to the 2012 budget.

Heartland is also funding contrarians in Canada and other countries, the documents show.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/17/heartland-institute-fresh-scrutiny-tax

DENIERGATE COMPANIES

Company    Ticker Symbol    2010-2011 Total    Project Code

Altria Client Services Inc.    MO    $90,000    BTN

Amgen, USA    AMGN    $25,000    HCN

Anheuser-Busch Companies Inc.    BUD    $5,000    ITTN

AT&T    T    $100,000    ITTN

BB&T    BBT    $16,105    ECN

Comcast Corporation    CMCSA    $35,000    ITTN

Diageo    DEO    $10,000    GO

Eli Lilly & Company    LLY    $25,000    HCN

General Motors Foundation    GM    $30,000    SRN

GlaxoSmithKline    GSK    $50,000    HCN

KCI    KCI    $115,000    FIRE

LKQ Corporation    LKQX    $24,500    FIRE

Microsoft Corporation    MSFT    $59,908    ITTN

Nucor Corporation    NUE    $502,000    ECN

PepsiCo, Inc.    PEP    $5,000    BTN

Pfizer    PFE    $130,000    HCN

Reynolds American Inc.    RAI    $110,000    FIRE

Time Warner Cable    TWC    $20,000    ITTN

XL Group    XL    $35,000    FIRE

Projects:

BTN=Budget & Tax News; ECN=Environment & Climate News; FIRE=Finance Insurance and Real Estate ; GO=General Operating; HCN=Health Care News; ITTN=Information Technology & Telecom News; SRN=School Reform News.

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/02/17/428111/exposed-the-19-public-corporations-funding-the-climate-denier-think-tank-heartland-institute/

huffpo

According to documents leaked and posted to DeSmogBlog, the Heartland Institute has budgeted $612,000 for a Wisconsin campaign called Operation Angry Badger. The campaign consists of an effort to inform voters of the success of Walker's budget law, passed on June 26, that included a reduction in the collective bargaining rights of workers in public employee unions.The budget sparked a labor-led protest movement that has consumed Wisconsin politics over the past year.

Document dump: http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute-exposed-internal-documents-unmask-heart-climate-denial-machine

Climate Denial Bombshell

Posted: 02/15/2012 9:18 am

A major event in the U.S. political battle over climate change happened this week with the unauthorized release of secret internal documents that reveal the finances and truly Machiavellian strategy of the Heartland Institute, a leading oil-industry-funded disinformation machine designed to spread propaganda and cast doubt on the settled science of anthropogenic global warming.

Tuesday morning, an anonymous person set up a Gmail account and used it to send incriminating internal strategy and budget documents to the email inboxes of bloggers who write about science denialism and climate change, then immediately cancelled the gmail account. The documents appear to be genuine and have been checked against other sources, which confirm their authenticity. If true, they show a pattern of breathtaking mendacity.

Take, for instance, the Heartland Institute's strategy of promoting climate science disinformation and propaganda in America's K-12 science classes, among the children who will be most impacted by it. The group is "pursuing a proposal from Dr. David Wojick to produce a global warming curriculum for K-12 schools." According to the Heartland Institute, 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. Fair enough, except when you read on.

His effort will focus on providing 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.

There, in black and white in the group's strategy document, is the truly nefarious, unAmerican, bald-faced goal: to dissuade American science teachers from teaching science. The group plans to pay Wojick $100,000 do develop a 20-module curriculum of obfuscation.

In an American science education crisis, where American students are ranking far down in international science rankings, this strategy should be inviting calls from congress for an investigation. Who is this Heartland Institute, who are their funders, what schools are adopting this curricula, and who is the mysterious "Anonymous donor" who is funding much of the miseducation of America's students? What other misinformation for political ends is being pushed into American science classrooms?

PISA rankings

But the disinformation being played on the American people doesn't stop there. Heartland brags about how it has worked

to undermine the official United Nation's IPCC reports and paid a team of writers $388,000 in 2011 to work on a series of editions of Climate Change Reconsidered.

This statement alone is enough to cast withering scientific doubt on anything and everything the Heartland Institute has ever produced. At the time, the Heartland Institute said of its Reconsidered report, "This isn't 'denial,' it's just common sense."

Any organization whose stated goal is not the discovery or communication of knowledge, but the political goal to "undermine" official reports is by definition not doing anything remotely like either science or common sense, but is instead using the language of science to work toward a predetermined ideological objective.

In other words, rhetoric. Any reporter who now quotes or sources from a Heartland Institute report should realize that they are, by the Heartland Institute's own admission, printing ideologically-driven propaganda, not measurement-driven knowledge.

If you thought that was bad enough, consider the Heartland Institute's true objective, as evidenced by their "increased climate project fundraising" goals.

Other contributions will be pursued for this work, especially from corporations whose interests are threatened by climate policies.

And this is where it is laid bare. In my book Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America, I show why science is never partisan, but science is always political. That is because whenever it creates new knowledge, that knowledge either confirms or challenges somebody's vested interests -- and those vested interests fight back.

In 1633, the seat of world political and economic power was the Vatican, and the Roman Catholic Church went to absurd lengths to indict the scientist Galileo and cast doubt on his simple observations:

1. The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and

immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and

formally heretical; because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures.

2. The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world, nor

immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal action, is also

absurd, philosophically false, and, theologically considered, at least

erroneous in faith.

Today, the seat of world political and economic power is the U.S. energy industry. Koch Industries, for example, is the second largest private held company in America, and a major donor to the Heartland Institute. With a market cap of $407 billion, Exxon-Mobil is the world's most valuable company, period.

It's no wonder energy companies find the simple, repeatable measurements of climate scientists threatening. But now we see just how nefarious are the lengths of disinformation to which some of them will go.

BEST global temperatures

Anyone who is on the fence about whether climate change is really happening should consider the breathtaking, unAmerican manipulation of their minds and the minds of their children that makes up the core strategy of one of America's leading voices putting out supposedly "scientific" reports that question climate change.

The Heartland Institute has shown it has no credibility -- but worse, it has no heart.

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.

Other stories on the Heartland documents

Deep Climate

Greg Laden

Brad Johnson

Richard Littlemore

John Mashey

Joe Romm

Peter Sinclair

Michael Tobis

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shawn-lawrence-otto/heartland-institute-leaked-documents_b_1278059.html?view=print&comm_ref=false

HEARTLAND  chicago

founded 84 PMorris $

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

SW:  according to the Institute's web site, is a nonprofit organization whose mission is "to discover and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems".[1] The Institute campaigns in support of:

* "Common-sense environmentalism", such as opposition to the the Kyoto Protocol aimed at countering global warming COAL

* Genetically engineered crops and products;

* The privatization of public services;

* The introduction of school vouchers;

* The deregulation of health care insurance;

and against:

* What it refers to as "junk science" (science that that could indicate a need for regulation);

* Tobacco control measures such as tobacco tax increases (the Institute denies the health effects of second-hand smoke);

Disputing global warming

In March 2008 the Heartland Institute hosted what was referred to as The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change.[31]

A similar conference was held in March 2009 in New York.[32][33]

The Third International Conference on Climate Change was held in Washington, DC on June 2, 2009 at the Washington Court Hotel, to "call attention to widespread dissent to the asserted 'consensus' on various aspects of climate change and global warming," according to Heartland's announcement of the event. "The conference's theme will be Climate Change: Scientific Debate and Economic Analysis. The theme reflects the fact that the scientific debate is not over and that economic analysis is more important than ever, now that legislation is being seriously considered. The real science and economics of climate change support the view that global warming is not a crisis and that immediate action to reduce emissions is not necessary. This is, in fact, the emerging consensus view of scientists outside the IPCC and most economists outside environmental advocacy groups," Heartland's website states. [34]

The Heartland Institute's Environmental "expert,"James Taylor, is a lawyer based in Florida.Despite presenting a veneer of scientific expertise in their Environmental advocacy, the Heartland lacks any scientists trained to understand climate issues.

LIST: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute/Global_warming_experts INCLUDESD AVERY, # Sallie Baliunas, Astrophysicist and Senior Scientist, George C. Marshall Institute

Timothy Ball, Environmental Consultant and Former Climatology Professor, University of Winnipeg

Robert Balling, Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University...# David Legates, Climatologist and Director, Delaware Environmental Observing System

Jay Lehr, Science Director, The Heartland Institute

Marlo Lewis, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute

Henry Linden, Professor of Energy and Power Engineering and Management, Illinois Institute of Technology

Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Craig Loehle, Principal Scientist, National Council for Air and Stream Improvement

# Bjorn Lomborg,Director, Copenhagen Consensus Centre

Water policy

Heartland opposes the Great Lakes Water Resources Compact, which was signed into affect in December of 2005 by the governors of eight states that border the great lakes, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and New York, and the premiers of the Canadian provinces of Quebec and Ontario. As of 2008, the compact was ratified by all of the eight state legislatures. The compact was proposed in light of the unprecedented low levels of water in the lakes, which are now at the bottom end of the historical fluctuation range of 4-6 feet. In order to mitigate diminishing water levels, The compact will limit the consumption of water from the Great Lakes to areas within these eight states, or to areas outside of the boundary only by petition subject to strict regulation. [35] This new regulation also stemmed from proposals to ship water from the Great Lakes to other states like Arizona, or even out of the country into Asian water markets. [36]

In a research and commentary report released in March of 2007, the Heartland Institute criticized the compact, claiming water should be regulated through the market rather than through the government. [37] In this report, Heartland, as is typical of a free market think tank, contends that water is a commodity just like other resources, and should thus be regulated through market mechanisms. The report cites Terry Anderson, Director of the Property and Environment Research Center, arguing that "water rights should be allocated and traded in the marketplace, even if that means shipping water to Asia at the right price. It's no different than shipping out cars or iron ore." [37]

Funding

In its 20075 annual return to the Internal Revenue Service, Heartland disclosed its 2007 annual revenue as being $5.2 million while its total expenses were $5.8 million. The deficit of $648,458 ate through the group's start of year reserves of $535,113. By the end of 2007, Heartland was in the red to the tune of $113,345.[3] In its 2008 annual report to supporters, Heartland outlines that corporate sponsorships start out at $10,000, with the next rung up being "silver" sponsors which contribute $25,000, "gold" sponsors donating $50,000 and "platinum" sponsors kicking in $100,000.[4]

Secrecy on funding sources

YET

* Armstrong Foundation

* Barre Seid Foundation

* Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation

* Jaquelin Hume Foundation

* Charlotte and Walter Kohler Charitable Trust

* Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation

* Hickory Foundation

* JM Foundation

* John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.

* Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation

* Rodney Fund

* Roe Foundation

* Scaife Foundations (Sarah Mellon Scaife, Carthage)

* Walton Family Foundation

wiki

The Heartland Institute is a libertarian[2][3][4] American public policy think tank based in Chicago, Illinois which advocates free market policies. The Institute is designated as a 501(c)(3)non-profit by the Internal Revenue Service and advised by a 15 member board of directors, which meets quarterly. As of 2008, it has a full-time staff of 30, including editors and senior fellows.[2] The Institute was founded in 1984 and conducts research and advocacy work on issues including government spending, taxation, healthcare, tobacco policy, global warming, information technology and free-market environmentalism.

In the 1990s, the group worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question the science linking secondhand smoke to health risks, and to lobby against government public health reforms.[5][6][7] More recently, the Institute has focused on questioning the scientific consensus on climate change, and has sponsored meetings of climate change skeptics.[8]

Contents

1 History and leadership

2 Positions

2.1 Global warming

2.2 Smoking

3 Publications

4 Funding

5 See also

6 References

7 External links

History and leadership

In its early years, the Heartland Institute focused on policies relevant to the Midwestern United States. Since 1993 it has focused on reaching elected officials and opinion leaders in all 50 states. In addition to research, the Heartland Institute features an Internet application called PolicyBot which serves as a clearinghouse for research from other conservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation, the American Legislative Exchange Council, and the libertarian Cato Institute. The Institute's president and CEO is Joseph L. Bast.

Positions

Global warming

The Heartland Institute questions the scientific consensus on climate change, arguing that global warming is not occurring and, further, that warming would be beneficial if it did occur.[9] The institute is a member organization of the Cooler Heads Coalition, which describes itself as "an informal and ad-hoc group focused on dispelling the myths of global warming."[10] In Merchants of Doubt, Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway wrote that the Heartland Institute was known "for its persistent questioning of climate science, for its promotion of 'experts' who have done little, if any, peer-reviewed climate research, and for its sponsorship of a conference in New York City in 2008 alleging that the scientific community's work on global warming is a fake."[7]

In 2008, 2009, and 2010, the Heartland Institute sponsored international conferences bringing hundreds of global warming skeptics to New York City. Speakers included Richard Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at MIT; Roy Spencer, a former NASA scientist; S. Fred Singer, who was founding dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at the University of Miami and founding director of the National Weather Satellite Service; Harrison Schmitt, a former NASA astronaut and Apollo 17 moonwalker; and John Theon, a former NASA administrator. Participants criticized the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore.[11][6] The BBC reported that the heavily politicized nature of the Heartland conferences led some "moderate" climate skeptics to avoid them.[8]

In 2008 a bibliography written by Dennis Avery was posted on Heartland’s Web site, titled "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares,”[12][13] In late April 2008, Heartland reported that the web site DeSmogBlog had "targeted The Heartland Institute in late April 2008, and in particular two lists posted on Heartland’s Web site of scientists whose published work contradicts some of the main tenets of global warming alarmism." [13] The Sydney Morning Herald reported that the work of Jim Salinger, chief scientist at New Zealand's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, was "misrepresented" as part of a "denial campaign".[14]

In response to criticism, the Heartland Institute changed the title of the list to “500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares.” [13] Heartland did not remove any of the scientists' names from the list.[13][14] Dennis Avery explained, "Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptic"..."but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see.”[13] Heartland’s president, Joseph Bast, wrote “They have no right -- legally or ethically -- to demand that their names be removed from a bibliography composed by researchers with whom they disagree. Their names probably appear in hundreds or thousands of bibliographies accompanying other articles or in books with which they disagree. Do they plan to sue hundreds or thousands of their colleagues? The proper response is to engage in scholarly debate, not demand imperiously that the other side redact its publications.”[13]

Smoking

In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with Philip Morris to question the link between secondhand smoke and health risks.[6][15] Philip Morris used Heartland to distribute tobacco-industry material, and arranged for the Heartland Institute to publish "policy studies" which summarized Philip Morris reports.[15][16] The Heartland Institute also undertook a variety of other activities on behalf of Philip Morris, including meeting with legislators, holding "off-the-record" briefings, and producing op-eds, radio interviews, and letters.[15][17] In 1994, at the request of Philip Morris, the Heartland Institute met with Republican Congressmen to encourage them to oppose increases in the federal excise tax. Heartland reported back to Philip Morris that the Congressmen were "strongly in our camp", and planned further meetings with other legislators.[18]

Publications

The Heartland Institute publishes five monthly public policy newspapers aimed at state legislators. These include: Budget and Tax News, which advocates lower taxes and balanced budgets for states and the federal government; School Reform News, which calls for greater competition and school choice; Environment & Climate News, which focuses on "market-based environmental protection"; Health Care News, devoted to consumer-driven health care reform and edited by Ben Domenech; and Infotech and Telecom News, which covers the technology and telecommunications industries from a free market perspective. The five monthly publications have a circulation total of nearly 200,000.[19]

Funding

According to its brochures, the Heartland Institute receives money from approximately 1,600 individuals and organizations, and no single corporate entity donates more than 5% of the operating budget.[20] Heartland states that it does not accept government funds and does not conduct contract research for special-interest groups.[21]

MediaTransparency reported that the Heartland Institute received funding from politically conservative foundations such as the Castle Rock Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.[22][dead link]

Oil and gas companies have contributed to the Heartland Institute, including over $600,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005.[23] Greenpeace reported that the Heartland Institute received almost $800,000 from ExxonMobil.[14] By 2008, ExxonMobil had stopped funding to Heartland.[dubious – discuss] Joseph Bast, president of the Heartland Institute, argued that ExxonMobil was simply distancing itself from Heartland out of concern for its public image.[23]

The Heartland Institute has also received funding and support from the tobacco company Philip Morris.[15] The Independent reported that Heartland's receipt of donations from Exxon and Philip Morris indicates a "direct link"..."between anti-global warming sceptics funded by the oil industry and the opponents of the scientific evidence showing that passive smoking can damage people's health."[6]

As of 2006, the Walton Family Foundation (run by the family which founded Wal-Mart) had contributed approximately $300,000 to the Heartland Institute. The Heartland Institute published an op-ed in the Louisville Courier-Journal defending Wal-Mart against criticism over its treatment of workers. The Walton Family Foundation donations were not disclosed in the op-ed, and the editor of the Courier-Journal stated that he was unaware of the connection and would probably not have published the op-ed had he known of it.[24] The St. Petersburg Times described the Heartland Institute as "particularly energetic defending Wal-Mart."[24] Heartland has stated that its authors were not "paid to defend Wal-Mart" and did not receive funding from the corporation; it did not disclose the $300,000+ received from the Walton Family Foundation.[24]

See also

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

References

^ IRS Form 990 (2006), The Heartland Institute

^ a b About Us page on Heartland Institute web page. The page notes "Dr. Milton Friedman called Heartland 'a highly effective libertarian institute.'"

^ Alasdair Scott Roberts, Blacked out: government secrecy in the information age, Cambridge University Press,p. 253, 2006 ISBN 0521858704, 9780521858700

^ It also has been described as right-wing. See, for example:

Pilkington, Ed (September 14, 2009). "Anti-Obama protesters march in Washington". Irish Times. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/0914/1224254474903.html. Retrieved September 3, 2010. "They include right-wing think tanks such as the Heartland Institute..."

Connor, Steve (March 3, 2008). "Tobacco and oil pay for climate conference". The Independent. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/tobacco-and-oil-pay-for-climate-conference-790474.html. Retrieved September 2, 2010. "The first international conference designed to question the scientific consensus on climate change is being sponsored by a right-wing American think-tank which receives money from the oil industry."

Harrabin, Roger (May 21, 2010). "Climate sceptics rally to expose 'myth'". BBC. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8694544.stm. Retrieved September 3, 2010. "At the world's biggest gathering of climate change sceptics, organised by the right-wing Heartland Institute..."

Harte, Julia (December 16, 2009). "Shooting the Messenger". Philadelphia City Paper. http://citypaper.net/articles/2009/12/17/pennsylvania-climate-change-action-plan. Retrieved September 5, 2010. "Jay Lehr, science director at the right-wing Heartland Institute, concurs."

^ Tesler, L. E.; Malone, R. E. (2010). ""Our Reach Is Wide by Any Corporate Standard": How the Tobacco Industry Helped Defeat the Clinton Health Plan and Why It Matters Now". American Journal of Public Health 100 (7): 1174–1188. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2009.179150. "At Philip Morris's request, for example, Heartland Institute staff met with two Republican congressmen "to encourage opposition to the Clinton plan and FET [Federal Excise Tax] hikes."".

^ a b c d Connor, Steve (March 3, 2008). "Tobacco and oil pay for climate conference". The Independent. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/tobacco-and-oil-pay-for-climate-conference-790474.html. Retrieved September 2, 2010.

^ a b Oreskes, Naomi; Erik M. Conway (2010). Merchants of Doubt. Bloomsbury Press. ISBN 978-1-59691-610-4. pp. 233–234

^ a b Harrabin, Roger (May 21, 2010). "Climate sceptics rally to expose 'myth'". BBC. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8694544.stm. Retrieved September 3, 2010.

^ "Instant Expert Guide: Global Warming" (PDF). Heartland Institute. Archived from the original on December 1, 2006. http://web.archive.org/web/20061201133847/http://www.heartland.org/pdf/ieguide.pdf. Retrieved 4 March 2008.

^ "About GlobalWarming.org". Cooler Heads Coalition. http://www.globalwarming.org/about. Retrieved 2008-08-22.

^ Revkin, Andrew (March 4, 2008). "Cool View of Science at Meeting on Warming". New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/science/earth/04climate.html. Retrieved March 4, 2008.

^ 500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares, by Dennis T. Avery. From the Heartland Institute website; published September 14, 2007, accessed June 20, 2008.

^ a b c d e f Heartland Institute (May 5, 2008). "Controversy Arises Over Lists of Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares". Press release. http://heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=23207. Retrieved September 3, 2010.

^ a b c McKnight, David (August 2, 2008). "The climate change smokescreen". Sydney Morning Herald. http://www.smh.com.au/news/global-warming/the-climate-change-smokescreen/2008/08/01/1217097533885.html. Retrieved December 28, 2009.

^ a b c d Oreskes, Naomi; Erik M. Conway (2010). Merchants of Doubt. Bloomsbury Press. ISBN 978-1-59691-610-4.[page needed]

^ "Roy Marden to Thomas Borelli et al." (PDF). Philip Morris Documents Archive. April 22, 1997. http://www.pmdocs.com/PDF/2075574226D_4227_0.PDF.

^ Roy Marden (October 26, 1999). "Opposition to Fedsuit" (PDF). Philip Morris Documents Archive. http://www.pmdocs.com/PDF/2077575920A_5921_0.PDF.

^ "FET Update" (PDF). Philip Morris Documents Archive. January 28, 1994. http://www.pmdocs.com/PDF/2046554465_4467_0.PDF.

^ "Staff: Joseph Bast". Heartland Institute. http://www.heartland.org/about/profileresults.html?profile=6110DE2CC2614EF79267933376E6B380&directory=0490F571009CFDBBCAA4E62B8A3EBAE2. Retrieved 2009-12-10.

^ http://www.heartland.org/FAQArticle.cfm?faqId=7

^ Bast, Joseph (April 13, 2007). "Welcome to The Heartland Institute!". Heartlander. The Heartland Institute. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=10582.

^ "Heartland Institute Funding". MediaTransparency. http://www.mediatransparency.com/recipientgrants.php?recipientID=152. Retrieved June 20, 2008.

^ a b Revkin, Andrew (March 8, 2009). "Skeptics Dispute Climate Worries and Each Other". New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/science/earth/09climate.html. Retrieved September 2, 2010.

^ a b c Adair, Bill (September 10, 2006). "Corporate spin can come in disguise". St. Petersburg Times. http://www.sptimes.com/2006/09/10/Worldandnation/Corporate_spin_can_co.shtml. Retrieved September 3, 2010.

External links

Heartland's official website

Sourcewatch - More detailed funding information

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute"

Categories: Political and economic think tanks in the United States | Libertarian think tanks | Libertarian organizations based in the United States | Organizations of environmentalism skeptics and critics | Non-profit organizations based in Chicago, Illinois

-

"ArticGate" - When is a Mistake a Lie?

What did Harrison Schmitt Know? And When?

In the ongoing controversy over whether former astronaut and New Mexico Senator Harrison Schmitt intentionally misled NASA with his 2009 white paper on climate change, we come to the age old questions: What did Schmitt know? And when did he know it?

Schmitt says in that paper that "Artic (sic) sea ice has returned to 1989 levels of coverage." When Dr. Mark Boslough, a physicist and computational modeler at Sandia National Laboratories brought to Schmitt's attention that this was incorrect, Schmitt failed to correct it. Well, not everyone likes to admit making a mistake.

But was it a mistake? Joseph Bast, President of the tobacco and oil-stained Heartland Institute, of which Schmitt is a Director, wrote in a snarling defence of his boss that, "In fact, National Snow and Ice Data Center records show conclusively that in April 2009, Arctic sea ice extent had indeed returned to and surpassed 1989 levels." And you can see from the little graph at the left that, for a week or so in April and May, that's correct.

But Schmitt submitted his paper in September, and a colleague who has seen an electronic copy of that document reports that it was last edited on August 29, 2009. And here is a comparison of Arctic sea ice in 1989 and 2009 on that day.

So, we know the information on sea ice extent was wrong on the day Schmitt pushed the button. We know that the error was called to his attention and that he failed to correct it. We know that when that factual abdication was brought to public attention, Joe Bast, the president of Schmitt's smokey organization jumped to his defence and we know that Jim Lakely, the communicat­ions director for Heartland, has spent a fair amount of time dissembling further on the Huffington Post story on this issue written by Dr. Peter Gleick.

http://environmental-sustainability.soup.io/tag/Heartland%20Institute

dirty dozen

No. 7: The Heartland Institute Meet the 12 loudest members of the chorus claiming that global warming is a joke and that CO2 emissions are actually good for you.

http://motherjones.com/environment/2009/12/dirty-dozen-climate-change-denial-06-heartland-institute

The Heartland Institute has a long history of shilling for corporate lepers. Since 1993, it has received $190,000 from Philip Morris USA and maintains a smokers' rights section on its website called "The Smoker's Lounge." Its global warming section is more active. It features a handy list of denial talking points ("Scores of peer-reviewed studies contradict global warming alarmism") and links to full-page ads Heartland has run in the Washington Post decrying the media for hyping "false claims of impending 'planetary emergencies.'"

Heartland, which has received $670,000 from ExxonMobil and its foundations since 1998, views itself as a bulwark against a leftist domino effect. "Fighting global warming extremism is essential," its website says, "if we are to stop a resurgence of radical environmentalism and left liberalism on a wide range of other public policy issues."

In June, the Heartland Institute held its Third International Conference on Climate Change in Washington, DC, "to expose Congressional staff and journalists to leading scientists" such as Craig Idso, Lord Christopher Monckton, and Anthony Watts. The conference was cosponsored by Americans for Prosperity, the Science and Public Policy Institute, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which has received more than $2 million from ExxonMobil and its foundations since 1998. In the conference's concluding address, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) complained that his opponents had called him "Dumb, crazy man, science abuser, Holocaust denier, villain of the month, hate-filled, warmonger, Neanderthal, Genghis Khan, and Attila the Hun." But, he added, "I've got 20 kids and grandkids, and they think it's great."

Heartland has jumped on Climategate with a vengeance. The stolen emails at the center of the storm "reveal a conspiracy to falsify the actual temperature record and silence so-called 'skeptics,'" it writes on its website. "Anyone who continues to cite the IPCC as representing the 'consensus' on global warming is wrong. The IPCC has been totally discredited."

Despite Heartland's corn-fed name, it also funds foreign denial groups. Its 2007 tax filing lists $120,000 in donations to four groups in Canada and New Zealand that oppose signing a new climate agreement in Copenhagen. In October, one recipient, Canada's Frontier Center for Public Policy, sponsored an event at the Calgary Petroleum club called "Apocalypse Cancelled," where Monckton will discuss "the non-problem of anthropogenic 'global warming.'"

Heartland stopped disclosing its donors in 2004 after being "punished for doing so" by the liberal media, explains Heartland president and CEO Joseph Bast. He insists that 95 percent of Heartland's funding now comes from "non-energy and non-tobacco sources" and that internal policies insulate staff from the influence of donors: "Try saying this very slowly, several times and out loud: 'They aren't in this for the money.'" Heartland says that it stopped taking money from Exxon in 2006.

Bast declined to reveal the recipients of Heartland's $182,000 in overseas grants in 2008, and the group's tax filing doesn't name them. (The tax code requires foundations to disclose any donations greater than $5,000.) He would only say that Copenhagen negotiations "make our work on climate change especially timely and relevant, but influencing those negotiations is not our purpose.

By Josh Harkinson

Lee Fang 2.17.2012

President Obama’s health reform law forced health insurance companies to largely stop canceling medical coverage to patients after being diagnosed with a disease. Rescissions, as they are known, allowed insurers to cancel individual market policies by finding spelling errors or minor mistakes in coverage applications as an excuse to halt treatment for patients.

An investigation found five health insurance companies operating in California had rescinded care for sick patients in over 20,000 instances. A congressional hearing following the study revealed cases in which people died after having vital health coverage rescinded. One of the health care companies that engaged in this practice, including in California, is UnitedHealth’s Golden Rule Insurance company.

Recently leaked document show that Golden Rule actually funneled large donations to a nonprofit “think tank” that fought aggressively to defend the right of insurance companies to engage in rescissions. The leaked documents, all relating to the fundraising operation of the Heartland Institute, have largely been covered by the media only through the lens of the group’s dedication to anti-climate science propaganda. But given the Heartland Institute’s lobbying against certain aspects of health reform, the Golden Rule donations are just as important.

Golden Rule gave $40,030 to the Heartland Institute in 2010, followed by a $250,000 donation last year and another $250,000 pledged for this year, according to the documents. The money is earmarked for the Heartland Institute’s health care policy program.

During this time period, the Heartland Institute published several documents railing against “Obamacare,” citing the new regulations against rescissions as part of the problem. The Heartland Institute’s Peter Ferrara sides with insurers in a major report and says the practice of rescinding care is “only fair,” given how patients lie on applications. In addition to promoting ludicrous conspiracy theories like the “death panel” charge, the Heartland Institute also published a newsletter with a pieces that derided the crackdown on rescissions. One newsletter downplayed worry about rescissions as “scare stories,” while noting that such incidents “rarely occur.”

The insurers fought hard against the health reform regulation curbing rescissions. The same California investigation found that rescinding care saved the companies $300 million over a five year period. But lobbying isn’t always as simple as hiring a K Street firm. Often, corporations will defend heinous business practices from oversight by paying a third party or nonprofit to make their case for them

defense of leaked docs called rathergate forgery  http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2012/02/17/fraudulent-attack-on-heartland-institute-exposes-alarmist-desperation/

duplicate:

Chinese science academy slaps down climate-denying Heartland Institute

By John Upton

Well, that was embarrassing.

The Heartland Institute — the right-wing group best known for its Unabomber billboard — recently boasted on a blogabout successfully spreading its message of climate denial to the Chinese:

The trend toward skepticism and away from alarmism is now unmistakable …

Publication of a Chinese translation of Climate Change Reconsidered by the Chinese Academy of Sciences indicates the country’s leaders believe their [failure to sign a global climate treaty] is justified by science and not just economics.

But really all that happened was that one of Heartland’s climate-denial reports, “Climate Change Reconsidered,” was translated into Chinese[PDF].

And translation does not mean endorsement. Even the translators’ preface says the work was undertaken “to understand different opinions and positions in debates on climate change” and “does not reflect that [those involved in the translation] agree with the views” in the report.

When the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) got wind of Heartland’s blog post, it was not pleased. It put out a statement harshly condemning the post:

The claim of the Heartland Institute about CAS’ endorsement of its report is completely false. …

Since there is absolutely no ground for the so called CAS endorsement of the report, and the actions by the Heartland Institute went way beyond acceptable academic integrity, we have requested by email to the president of the Heartland Institute that the false news on its website to be removed. We also requested that the Institute issue a public apology to CAS for the misleading statement on the CAS endorsement.

Heartl threatened legal action of anyone who posted glieck docs, then begged for $ to do so:

Internal Heartland Institute Email Blasts "Lamestream Media" for Climate Leak

>It's been an interesting few days in the climate denial world. On Tuesday, *DeSmogBlog* and *Think Progress* posted what they described as internal documents from the Heartland Institute, a fossil-fuel-funded right-wing think tank that spends much of its time denying climate change. The posted documents include plans for disseminating climate change disinformation to kids and to provide funding for science deniers.

Heartland responded on Wednesday, claiming that some of the documents are real, but others are a "total fake," and still others are being reviewed. The group wrote in a press release:

The stolen documents were obtained by an unknown person who fraudulently assumed the identity of a Heartland board member and persuaded a staff member here to "re-send" board materials to a new email address. Identity theft and computer fraud are criminal offenses subject to imprisonment. We intend to find this person and see him or her put in prison for these crimes.

It's worth noting that Heartland didn't seem to mind when emails between climate scientists that were stolen from a server, made public, and lied about on the internet—either the first or second time it happened. It's only now that that type of behavior is "just despicable," a "violation of journalistic ethics," and a criminal offense.

Now Heartland is using the incident to fundraise, according to an email to donors obtained by Mother Jones on Wednesday night. The email complains that "scores of bloggers and left-wing activists and their pets in the lamestream media" are posting and quoting the documents, and says that what New York Times' Andy Revkin did—i.e. publishing some of the documents—"was not only unethical, it was also probably illegal." It also asks for donations to the organization's legal defense fund to fight "false and defamatory" stories. And it apologizes to funders whose names were made public by the incident: "We promise anonymity to many of our donors because nobody wants the risk of nutty environmentalists or Occupy Wall Street goons harassing them. We know that privacy is important to you."

The full email is below the fold:

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Dear Heartland donor,

I need your help!

Yesterday afternoon, two advocacy groups posted online several documents they claimed were The Heartland Institute's internal budget, fundraising, and strategy plans.

Now, scores of bloggers and left-wing activists and their pets in the lamestream media are posting and quoting these "leaked" documents.

We have released a formal statement about the situation (here), but I wanted to give you this personal explanation of what happened.

Your stalwart support is needed now more than ever. This attack would not have happened if we weren't unveiling the truth.

What Happened?

Someone stole the identity of a Heartland board member and persuaded a staff member here to "re-send" board materials to a new email address. That same unknown person forged a "strategy" memo that seriously misrepresents our goals and tactics and added it to the stolen documents, then sent them to many of the bloggers and hate groups that occupy the blogosphere.

I was in Washington, DC when Andrew Revkin of the New York Times broke the story without giving us a chance to confirm or deny the authenticity of the documents.

Since the documents were obviously stolen and marked "confidential," what Revkin did was not only unethical, it was also probably illegal.

I didn't get home until late last night. This morning we discovered how the crime was committed and confirmed that the "strategy" memo was a fraud. Just now we released a formal statement to the press and our allies explaining what happened.

Right now we are trying to get the individuals and organizations that have tried to make hay with these stolen and fraudulent documents to retract their statements, by threatening legal action if necessary.

About the Documents

Most of the leaked documents appear to have been written by me for a board meeting that took place on January 17. I have not yet had a chance to compare the ones that are posted online with the originals I wrote, so I don't know if they are authentic or have been altered.

At least one of the documents alleged to have come from Heartland, titled "Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy," is a forgery apparently intended to defame and discredit The Heartland Institute. It was not written by anyone associated with The Heartland Institute. It does not express Heartland's goals, plans, or tactics. It contains several obvious and gross misstatements of fact.

Left-wing bloggers are filling the blogosphere with quotes from the fake memo, claiming it reveals our "hidden agenda" and "secret plans." That is complete nonsense, a fraud, and a huge violation of journalistic ethics. But there it is.

Dave Padden, Heartland's founder and long-time chairman, used to say that a lie can run around the world while the truth is still tying its shoestrings. Of course he was right. We're witnessing that right now.

Legal Action?

We have reported the identity theft and computer fraud to the police and to the FBI. We are asking the bloggers and reporters to immediately remove these documents and all statements about them from the blogs, Web sites, and publications, and to publish retractions.

But we aren't holding our breath.

The individuals who have commented so far on these documents did not wait for Heartland to confirm or deny the authenticity of the documents. We believe their actions constitute civil and possibly criminal offenses for which we can pursue charges and collect payment for damages, including damages to our reputation.

Litigation is expensive, and it surely wasn't in our budget for 2012. But we don¹t think the criminals who did this ought to be allowed to skate away without penalty.

We are creating a legal defense fund to support litigation, starting immediately, to demand that false and defamatory material be removed from blogs and Web sites and publications, and that the true criminals in this case be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Can you make a charitable contribution to our legal defense fund?

You would be helping us defend ourselves against a cowardly and criminal attack. You would also help us take down a notch some of the left-wing activists and their friends who so plainly crossed the line this time.

I Apologize

I am very sorry that the identities of some of our donors were revealed by this theft. I apologize to them, from the bottom of my heart.

We are calling everyone who was named in these documents to give them the bad news and offer whatever assistance we can to repair the damage.

We promise anonymity to many of our donors because nobody wants the risk of nutty environmentalists or Occupy Wall Street goons harassing them. We know that privacy is important to you.

When the left runs out of arguments and facts which is usually pretty quickly they turn to attacking our donors. They do this to discourage people from supporting us, as well as other conservative and libertarian groups. We understand their game.

I also apologize to Heartland staff, directors, and our allies in the fight to bring sound science to the global warming debate, who have had their privacy violated and their integrity impugned. The criminals who did this had no right to do it. Their behavior is just despicable.

We have taken measures to ensure that we aren't victims of identity theft and computer fraud again, but in this age of identity theft and hacking, I can't promise it won't ever happen again.

Can You Help?

Now more than ever, I need you to stand by us in our time of need and show your pride as a Heartland donor.

This attack would not have happened if we weren't unveiling the truth. The left fears us properly because on climate change, we are the loudest and most effective voice against alarmism in the country, even the entire world.

The left has lost the debate on climate change on the science, the politics, and the economics. Opinion polls show we've won the public debate, and surveys of scientists show the majority of them are with us now.

Much of the change in public opinion, as well as the death of "cap and trade" as a political issue, can be traced to the millions of books, videos, booklets, and other publications we produced during the past four years. Nobody has done more than we have to sound the alarm against the left's ideologically driven fear campaign on global warming.

If you understand the importance of our efforts and you stand with us, please consider giving at this critical time to ensure we can continue this important fight of exposing climate truth.

I am being inundated with phone calls and emails about this extraordinary event, so if you respond to this message and don¹t hear back from me promptly, please be patient. I will reply!

Please feel free to contact our Development team, Amanda Evans, director of development, Rachel Dunbar, corporate relations manager, or Gwen Carver, membership manager, at 312/377-4000 or by email at aevans@heartland.org, rrivest@heartland.org, orgcarver@heartland.org respectively.

Best regards!

Joseph L. Bast

President

==

Last week the libertarian Heartland Institute held its 6^th "International Conference on Climate Change" in Washington, DC, bringing together a varied batch of vocal climate contrarians to rail against the scientific consensus that human-induced climate change is a serious problem.

The speakers seemed to be more united by political ideology and a common enemy than by their grievances about the science. Among their assertions:

• "CO2 was found guilty in contradiction to the evidence because as we are now all aware, the temperature changes before the CO2, it is not the other way around, as is the fundamental assumption that is made for the AGW." -- Tim Ball
• "I agree with the IPCC that adding CO2 to the atmosphere should cause some warming. Where we differ is the degree of warming." -- Roy Spencer
• "I believe that this warming shown here [after 1979] is not real, does not exist." -- Fred Singer
• "From the mid-1970s," the earth warmed ".17 degrees C per decade in the surface record, .14 degrees in the satellite record." -- Pat Michaels
• "I do not agree" that "the recent rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide is due to man." -- Steve Goreham
• "There's no question that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere and that the primary cause is human." -- Fred Singer

Heartland senior fellow James Taylor claimed that the event is about "getting the science out to people," but several of the speakers indicated that this is by no means your typical scientific conference (if the repeated Atlas Shrugged references didn't give that away):

• "I guess I'm not a climate skeptic, just an economist. I don't know enough about the climate science to be skeptical about it." -- Robert Mendelsohn
• "I'm a lawyer, not a climate scientist." -- Barry Brill
• "I'm not a climate scientist. ... I'm a space guy." -- Larry Bell
• "I'm just a layperson ... I'm also a relative newcomer to the climate battle." -- Steve Goreham
• "I feel a bit of an imposter talking about the science. I'm kind of -- I'm not a scientist, you may be aware. ... I leave the science stuff to you guys and I think it's good that we stick to our jobs." -- James Delingpole

One of the attendees complained to me that the media would ignore the conference because it doesn't fit the preferred narrative. As it turned out, the New York Times posted an uncritical Greenwire article about the event before it had even ended, which Heartland president Joseph Bast then praised as "really nice" and "balanced." ...http://mediamatters.org/blog/2011/07/07/heartland-institutes-climate-contrarians-enjoy/185131

RIP CONF:

1st wave of defections, heartland and coal took up slack:

In addition to the Illinois Coal Association, , Heritage Foundation has also joined to sponsor the conference.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/21/487460/heartland-institute-hemorrhages-donors-and-cash-for-extremist-agenda-as-coal-and-oil-step-in/

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/23/489452/lack-of-funding-forces-heartland-to-end-climate-denial-conference/?mobile=nc

The exchange perfectly encapsulated the public-relations disaster the Heartland Institute has created for itself over the last few weeks. The downfall started with an offensive billboard campaign on May 3, and ended with 11 companies pulling support for the organization — stripping 35 percent its of corporate funds overnight and leaving its financial future uncertain.

The dramatic drop in support was facilitated by the advocacy organization Forecast the Facts, which collected more than 150,000 signatures from people calling on corporate donors to end their relationship with Heartland. Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Verizon, Wisconsin Insurance Alliance, and the Credit Union National Association are the latest to announce that they will not fund the Heartland Institute, bringing the total number of defecting companies to 15.

This series of events built on an earlier incident in which Peter Gleick, a scientist with the Pacific Institute, faked his identity to acquire internal documents from the Heartland Institute. Those documents showed that the organization planned to secretly develop school curriculum to spread doubt about the causes of climate change. It also opened up a window to the organization’s donors, which were forced to make a decision about whether or not they wanted to be associated with Heartland’s tactics.

And then yesterday, the other shoe dropped. In his closing speech, Heartland President Joseph Bast announced that the organization does not have the money to continue putting on its hallmark climate conference — an event that had become a rallying point for an insulated group of climate disinformers.

“I hope to see you at a future conference, but at this point we have no plans to do another [International Conference on Climate Change],” said Bast, explaining that Heartland was struggling to meet expenses.

The cancellation marks the end of an era — albeit a short era — for the oddball world of organized climate change denial.

The event was started in 2008 as a way to organize libertarians — many of whom believe that taking action on climate change would create a one-world government dominated by the United Nations.

Heartland tried hard to label the event a “science” conference. But the presentations were almost always political, peppered with anti-government rhetoric and conspiracy theories.

“We’re in a war. We’re in a war against our standard of living,” said Walt Cunningham, a former NASA astronaut, speaking in a morning session on Tuesday.

“There’s not a lot of science here,” said Scott Denning, an atmospheric scientist from Colorado State University who attended the event last year to present the so-called “warmist” case. Neither Denning nor any of the other 97 percent of climate scientists who say human activity is warming the planet presented at this year’s conference.

In fact, none of this year’s top speakers had any background in climate science. Instead, they spoke about the issues in highly conspiratorial terms.

Czech President Vaclav Klaus, a former economist who gave the keynote address on Monday, called environmentalism “identical to communism — identical, not similar.”

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), the featured keynote speaker for Tuesday, asked if we “need to put catalytic converters on our noses” by addressing heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere.

And following Sensenbrenner’s nonsensical remarks, Heartland brought up “special mystery guest” Lord Christopher Monckton, who admitted at the beginning of his speech that he has “no scientific qualification” to challenge climate science. He then performed a comedy routine in which he questioned the legitimacy of President Obama’s citizenship — a joke that brought the room to full applause.

These fringe views made even Heartland senior staffers very nervous. After the billboard debacle, the leader of Heartland’s Washington, D.C., office, Eli Lehrer, left the organization and brought six staff members with him, saying the campaign “didn’t reflect the seriousness which I want to bring to public policy.”

But Heartland’s leadership twisted the knife into their self-inflicted wound with a decision to keep repeating their extreme rhetoric in the lead-up to the conference — later calling Bill McKibben and Michael Mann “Madmen.”

The Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based think tank devoted to “promoting free-market solutions,” has been holding these confabs since 2008, sometimes twice a year. And the strategy appears to be working. At the end of day one, Morano—whose claim to fame is having broken the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth story that sank John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign—leads the gathering through a series of victory laps. Cap and trade: dead! Obama at the Copenhagen summit: failure! The climate movement: suicidal! He even projects a couple of quotes from climate activists beating up on themselves (as progressives do so well) and exhorts the audience to “celebrate!”

see also agenda 21,

http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate?page=full

6th annual 2011: inhofe keynote ducked for cold [severe OK drought? TX req fed help]

speakers: http://climateconference.heartland.org/about-2/speakers/

Heartland Institute communications director Jim Lakely:

Jim is the the director of communications at The Heartland Institute. Prior to joining Heartland, he was an ink-stained newspaperman for 16 years with many stops in "old media." Jim covered Congress and The White House during the George W. Bush administration for The Washington Times, and worked as a reporter, editorial writer and columnist for newspapers in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and California. He has appeared on the Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, C-Span, and many local and national talk radio shows to talk politics and policy.

James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News. (from TP site)

The Heartland Institute is convening a who’s-who of the global warming denial machine in Washington, DC over the next two days for the sixth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC6).

Seemingly content to let the world burn, the denizens of Denial-a-Palooza work year-round to sow doubt and confusion about climate change among the public - aided by Fox News and other friendly media outlets - so that no action is taken to limit heat-trapping gasses in the atmosphere. This event is attended by the best corporate front groups that polluter money can buy, and this year is no exception.

As in past years, the speakers and sponsors lists are dripping with oil money, and comprise nearly the full roster of groups who share a common interest - greenwashing dirty energy sources like oil and coal while simultaneously attacking the credibility of the world’s top climate scientists. The presentations will misrepresent the state of climate science, while the real action will take place backstage, as these groups coordinate their ongoing efforts to smear the reputation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (Note the intentional naming of this “ICCC” to sound like the IPCC.)

Let’s take a look at the funding of the sponsors of ICCC6:

17 of the 43 sponsors of the Heartland Institute’s Sixth International Conference on Climate Change, including the Heartland Institute itself, have collectively received over $46 million from either Scaife Foundations, Koch Foundations, or ExxonMobil and its foundation.

Most of these organizations, including many that choose not to disclose their funding sources, comprise the core of the industry attack on global warming science. See below for a complete breakdown of funding details:

*The Heritage Foundation, notably absent from the 2010 ICCC, is a sponsor again for the 2011 ICCC. Heritage has received $14,873,571 from industry sources.

SPONSORS

Here are the funding totals fororganizations sponsoring Heartland’s conference that are known to have received support from oil-fueled ‘free market’ foundations:

*= past sponsor.

Accuracy in Media*

• $3,120,000 – Scaife Foundations, 1998-2010

Americans For Prosperity*

• $5,610,781 – Koch Foundations, 1998-2009

Americans for Tax Reform *

• $60,000 – Koch Foundations, 1998-2009
• $575,000 – Scaife Foundations, 1998-2010
• Total: $635,500

Ayn Rand Institute*

• $25,000– Koch Foundations, 1998-2009

Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise (CDFE)*

• $230,000 – ExxonMobil, 1998-2010

Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change*

• $85,000 – Koch Foundations, 1998-2009
• $100,000 – ExxonMobil, 1998-2010
• $100,000 – Scaife Foundations, 1998-2010
• Total: $285,000

Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT)*

• $12,285 – Koch Foundations, 1998-2009
• $582,000– ExxonMobil, 1998-2010
• $1,915,000 – Scaife Foundations, 1998-2010
• Total: $2,509,285

Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)*

• $421,746 – Koch Foundations, 1998-2009
• $2,005,000 – ExxonMobil, 1998-2010
• $2,575,000 – Scaife Foundations, 1998-2010
• Total: $5,001,746

Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

• $27,592 – Koch foundations, 1998-2009
• $90,000 – Scaife foundations, 1998-2010
• Total: $117, 592

George C. Marshall Institute*

• $310,000 – Koch Foundations, 1998-2009 ($70,000 in 2009)
• $840,000 – ExxonMobil, 1998-2010 (none in 2010)
• $2,595,000 received from Scaife foundations, 1998-2010 ($230,000 in 2010)
• Total: $3,435,310

Heartland Institute

• $20,000 – Koch foundations, 1998-2009 (none in 2009)
• $676,500 – ExxonMobil, 1998-2010 (none in 2010)
• Total: $696,500

Heritage Foundation*

• $3,708,571 – Koch foundations, 1998-2009 ($618,571 in 2009)
• $670,000 – ExxonMobil, 1998-2010 ($50,000 in 2010)
• $10,495,000 – Scaife foundations, 1998-2010 ($600,000 in 2010)
• Total: $14,873,571

Independent Institute*

• $50,000 – Koch foundations, 1998-2009 (none in 2009)
• $85,000 – ExxonMobil, 1998-2010 (none in 2010)
• Total: $135,000

Independent Women’s Forum (IWF)

• $485,000 – Koch foundations, 1998-2009 ($150,000 in 2009)
• $50,000 – ExxonMobil, 1998-2010 (none in 2010)
• $1,850,000 – Scaife foundations, 1998-2010 (none in 2010)
• Total: $2,385,000

Media Research Center (a.k.a. the Business & Media Institute)*

• $15,005 – Koch foundations, 1998-2009 (none in 2009)
• $362,500 – ExxonMobil, 1998-2010 (none in 2010)
• $3,667,000 – Scaife foundations, 1998-2010 ($250,000 in 2010)
• Total: $4 044 505

National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA)

• $500,000 – Koch foundations, 1998-2009 ($25,000 in 2009)
• $645,900 – ExxonMobil, 1998-2010 (none in 2010)
• $1,575,000 – Scaife foundations, 1998-2010 ($100,000 in 2010)
• Total: 2,720,900

Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)*

• $20,000 – ExxonMobil, 1998-2000

Many of the conference’s other sponsors have been indirectly funded by industry, or are tied to “free market” foundations:

60 Plus Association*

• Member of the Cooler Heads Coalition.

African Center for Advocacy and Human Development*

• No funding information.

Alternate Solutions Institute American Energy Freedom Center*

• Received a $100,000 grant in 2008 from the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, which in turn has received over $1,080,000 from ExxonMobil, $153,000 from the Koch Foundations, and $2,270,000 from the Scaife Foundations.

American Policy Center*

• No funding records.

American Tradition Institute

• The ATI’s staff include Chris Horner, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and a leading force in climate denial.  Horner edits the Cooler Heads Coalition’s website.   -The ATI has successfully sued- Correction: U.Va was already in the process of [compiling the emails prior to ATI’s lawsuit against] the University of Virginia for Dr Michael Mann’s emails and are now attempting a similar legal action at NASA to get Dr James Hansen’s emails.

Australian Libertarian Society*

• No funding records.

Business and Media Institute*

• BMI is the sister organization to the large Media Research Center which has received $412,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

Cascade Policy Institute*

• No funding records from Exxon, Koch, or Scaife. MediaMatters has compiled alist of other funders.

Centro de Investigaciones de Instituciones y Mercados de Argentina

• No funding records.

Cathay Institute for Public Affairs*

• No funding records.

Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation

• According to a report by Think Progress, the Cornwall Alliance is a front group for the shadowy James Partnership. Both the James Partnership and the Cornwall Alliance are closely linked to the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), an anti-environmental group that is “funded by at least $542,000 from ExxonMobil, $60,500 from Chevron, and $1,280,000 from Scaife family foundations,

Energy Makes America Great Inc.

• No record of funding from Exxon, Koch, or Scaife.

Freedom Foundation of Minnesota

• No record of funding from Exxon, Koch, or Scaife.

Iceagenow.com

• No record of funding from Exxon, Koch, or Scaife.

Istitulo Bruno Leoni (Italy)

• No record of funding from Exxon, Koch, or Scaife.

International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)

• Headed by Canadian Tom Harris (a speaker at this year’s conference), its personnel are the “who’s who” of international climate denial, including David Bellamy, Tim Ball, Julian Morris (Reason Foundation) and infamous Christopher Monckton.

Instituto Liberdade*

• No funding information.

Instituto de Libre Empresa*

• No funding information.

Institute for Liberty (IFL)*

• A Tea Party group in the United States founded by Andrew Langer, an ex-employee of the Competetive Enterprise Institute (CEI).

Liberaty Institute (India)

• No funding information.

Lavoisier Group*

• No funding records from Exxon, Koch, or Scaife.
• From Sourcewatch: The group is closely associated with the Australian mining industry, and was founded in 2000 by Ray Evans, then an executive at Western Mining Corporation (WMC), who was also involved in founding the HR Nicholls Society and the Bennelong Society. Hugh Morgan, former WMC boss and head of the Business Council of Australia until 2005, delivered the group’s inaugural speech.

Mannkal Economic Education Foundation*

• No funding information.

Source: Desmogblog (http://s.tt/197BK)

2010 cosponsors:

African Centre for Advocacy and

Human Development - Nigeria

Alternate Solutions Institute -

Pakistan

American Conservative Union

American Policy Center

Americans for Prosperity

Americans for Tax Reform

Atlas Economic Research

Foundation

Australian Libertarian Society -

Australia

Austrian Economics Center -

Austria

Ayn Rand Center

for Individual Rights

Carbon Sense Coalition - Australia

Cascade Policy Institute

Cathay Institute

for Public Affairs - China

Center for the Defense

of Free Enterprise

Center for the Study of Carbon

Dioxide and Global Change

Centro de Investigaciones

de Instituciones y Mercados

de Argentina - Argentina

Citizens Alliance

for Responsible Energy

Climate Sceptics Party - Australia

Climate Science

Coalition of America

Committee For

a Constructive Tomorrow

Competitive Enterprise Institute

Cornwall Alliance for the

Stewardship of Creation

Doctors for Disaster Preparedness

European Coalition for Economic

Growth - Austria

Europäisches Institut für Klima und

Energie - Germany

Foundation for Economic Thinking

Free To Choose Network

Freedom Foundation of Minnesota

FreedomWorks

Frontier Centre for Public Policy -

Canada

Grassroot Institute of Hawaii

Hayek Institut - Austria

Hispanic Leadership Fund

Iceagenow.com

ICECAP

Illinois Policy Institute

The Independent Institute

Initiative for

Public Policy Analysis - Nigeria

Institute for Free Enterprise -

Germany

Institute of Public Affairs - Australia

Instituto Juan de Mariana - Spain

Instituto Liberdade - Brazil

Instituto De Libre Empresa - Peru

International Climate Science

Coalition - Australia

Istituto Bruno Leoni - Italy

Junkscience.com

The Lavoisier Group - Australia

The Leadership Institute

Liberales Institut - Switzerland

Liberty Institute - India

Lincoln Legal Foundation

John Locke Foundation

Mannkal Economic Education

Foundation - Australia

George C. Marshall Institute

Media Research Center

Minimal Government Thinkers, Inc.

• Philippines

National Center for

Public Policy Research

New Zealand Climate Science

Coalition - New Zealand

Oregon Institute of Science

and Medicine

Science & Environmental

Policy Project

Science and Public Policy Institute

Sovereignty International

Tennessee Center for Policy

Research

TS August

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=38&ved=0CGQQFjAHOB4&url=http%3A%2F%2Fuhaweb.hartford.edu%2Flgould%2FHeartland%2520Fourth%2520International%2520Conf_FullConferenceProgram.pdf&ei=jOoFUOeCBKu62gX0_oTPBQ&usg=AFQjCNFbk6NvMYX3dlO_kLjKucIbDbKNPg

DeSmogBlog found that the sponsors for the 2009 conference received over $47 million from oil companies and right-wing foundations.

The Heartland Institute is known for its continuous attacks on the scientific evidence for man-made climate change.  The Heartland Institute has received $240,000from Philip Morris since 1993 and over $670,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

EU Pres Klaus (and pres of czech rep) repeat visit; at davos w/ blair, al and kofi (al got laught at being called expert)

hard to talk about GW in Eur b/c greens have taken place of commies (says intro)  economic degree (prague school of economics)   blue planet in green shackles (publ CEI)

http://www.heartland.org/bin/media/newyork09/Audio/Sunday/Vaclav_Klaus.mp3

08 as well as 09

desmog bios of some speakers:

http://www.desmogblog.com/about-tv-weatherman-john-coleman-climate-skeptics-conference-speaker

pooley: 

SINGER 83 yo , conf sponsors Heartland (chic) AFP, Am Tax

payer Reform, FoF, GCMI, CEI  all these review each

other's work, conf eg endrun around legit,

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Conference_on_Climate_Change_%282009%29

Heartland Institute/International Conference on Climate Change (2009)

From SourceWatch

(Redirected from International Conference on Climate Change (2009))

Jump to: navigation, search

The Heartland Institute 2009 International Conference on Climate Change, held March 8-10th in New York at the Marriott New York Marquis Times Square Hotel, brought together scientists, economists, legal experts, and other climate specialists to "confront the issue of global warming." These specialists, all climate change skeptics, aim to call attention "to new research that contradicts claims that Earth’s moderate warming during the 20th Century primarily was man-made and has reached crisis proportions." ^{[1]^}(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Conference_on_Climate_Change_%282009%29#cite_note-Heartland-0) The conference was organised and "sponsored" by the Heartland Institute, a U.S. think tank that in preceding years received substantial funding from Exxon for its work downplaying the significance of global warming.

Funding the Conference

On its conference website, the Heartland Institute states that "all of the event’s expenses will be covered by admission fees and individual and foundation donors to Heartland. No corporate sponsorships or dollars earmarked for the event were solicited or accepted."^{[2]^}(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Conference_on_Climate_Change_%282009%29#cite_note-Cosponsors-1) However, it does not disclose which foundations are contributing to the conference.

While the admission fees are quite high, the Heartland Institute appears to be willing to subsidize the fees of anyone who signs their global warming petition. As described in the *Guardian*, "the generous souls at the Heartland Institute are offering a special 20% discount on the $720 registration fee. All you have to do to qualify is put your name to the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine's Global Warming Petition, which to date has been signed by 31,072 American scientists, 'including 9,021 with PhDs.'" ^{[3]^}(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Conference_on_Climate_Change_%282009%29#cite_note-2)

Ahead of the conference DeSmog Blog compiled a tally on the funding sources of the Heartland Institute and all the groups listed as co-sponsors of the conference. They found that "over $47 million from energy companies and right-wing foundations, with 78% of that total coming from the Scaife Family of foundations" in the period between 1985 and 2006. In their calculations, the contributors were^{[4]^}(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Conference_on_Climate_Change_%282009%29#cite_note-3):

• ExxonMobil (1998-2006): $6,199,000
• Koch Foundations (1986-2006): $4,438,920
• Scaife Foundations (1985-2006): $36,868,640

2009 conference rationale - building on 2008 and the NIPCC

The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change led to the production of the "Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change." While the "NIPCC enlisted several hundred scientists from more than 100 countries to work over five years to produce its series of reports, the NIPCC document is the work of 23 authors from 15 nations, some of them not scientists," said Juliet Eilperin of the Washington Post.^{[5]^}(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Conference_on_Climate_Change_%282009%29#cite_note-4) This report, edited by Fred Singer, alleged that "natural causes are very likely to be the dominant cause" of climate change and concluded that while anthropogenic sources of GHGs may produce some warming, "evidence shows they are not playing a significant role." ^{[6]^}(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Conference_on_Climate_Change_%282009%29#cite_note-5) The validity of the NIPCC report has been highly questioned by RealClimate, whose scientists have labeled the report "disingenuous and misleading, if not outright dishonest." On their wiki site, they debunk the arguments, chapter by chapter, put forth by the NIPCC. ^{[7]^}(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Conference_on_Climate_Change_%282009%29#cite_note-6)

2009's conference, with the theme "Global Warming Crisis: Cancelled," planned, as did the 2008 gathering, to call "attention to new research findings that contradict the conclusions of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report." ^{[8]^}(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Conference_on_Climate_Change_%282009%29#cite_note-7)

In an interview conducted part way through the conference with NPR, New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin explained that "what I sense, they're realizing that they have such a varied array of scientific explanations for what is going on with the climate that they felt the need to ... square up their own story in some sense because otherwise they are in danger of losing credibility. What has caused this change? They're not gaining traction."^{[9]^}(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Conference_on_Climate_Change_%282009%29#cite_note-RevkinNPR-8) Revkin said that Russell Seitz, who had attended the 2008 conference^{[10]^}(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Conference_on_Climate_Change_%282009%29#cite_note-9), "felt stiffed and didn't really fit their script". 'He felt a strong sense that there is a political frame of the issue that supersedes the need for the science to be accurate. He was kind of frustrated," Revkin said.^{[9]^}(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Conference_on_Climate_Change_%282009%29#cite_note-RevkinNPR-8)

Conference speakers

The conference was to focus on four tracks of panel discussions relating to climate change: Paleoclimatology, Climatology, Impact of Climate Change, and Economics and Politics. ^{[11]^}(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Conference_on_Climate_Change_%282009%29#cite_note-10) The 2009 International Conference on Climate Change website includes three podcasts, one that gives a program overview and two others that preview two of the conference headliners, Christopher Monckton and Christopher Horner. ^{[12]^}(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Conference_on_Climate_Change_%282009%29#cite_note-11)

2009 conference speakers

2009's speakers were to include:

• Alexandre Aguiar^{[13]^}(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Conference_on_Climate_Change_%282009%29#cite_note-12)
• Syun Akasofu: University of Alaska Fairbanks
• J. Scott Armstrong: University of Pennsylvania
• Dennis Avery of the Hudson Institute
• Joseph L. Bast of the Heartland Institute
• Cal Beisner
• Christopher Booker^{[14]^}(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Conference_on_Climate_Change_%282009%29#cite_note-13)
• Robert Bradley of the Institute for Energy Research
• Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute
• Gabriel Calzada^{[15]^}(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Conference_on_Climate_Change_%282009%29#cite_note-14)
• Francisco Capella
• Bob Carter : James Cook University (Australia)
• Frank Clemente: Penn State University
• John Coleman: KUSI-TV, San Diego
• William Cotton: Colorado State University
• Piers Corbyn ^{[16]^}(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Conference_on_Climate_Change_%282009%29#cite_note-15)
• Joe D’Aleo of the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project
• David Douglass: University of Rochester
• Terry Dunleavy of the International Climate Science Coalition
• John Dale Dunn^{[17]^}(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Conference_on_Climate_Change_%282009%29#cite_note-16)
• Don Easterbrook^{[18]^}(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Conference_on_Climate_Change_%282009%29#cite_note-17)
• Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute
• Christopher Essex: University of Western Ontario
• David Evans^{[19]^}(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Conference_on_Climate_Change_%282009%29#cite_note-18)
• Robert Ferguson of the Science and Public Policy Institute
• Michelle Foss: University of Texas, Center for Energy Economics
• Indur Goklany^{[20]^}(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Conference_on_Climate_Change_%282009%29#cite_note-19)
• Fred Goldberg: Royal School of Technology (Sweden)
• Stanley Goldenberg^{[21]^}(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Conference_on_Climate_Change_%282009%29#cite_note-20)
• Laurence Gould: University of Hartford
• William Gray: Colorado State University; is described by the Heartland Institute as a "leading researcher into tropical weather patterns."^{[22]^}(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Conference_on_Climate_Change_%282009%29#cite_note-Astronaut-21)
• Kesten Green: Monash University
• Kenneth P. Green
• Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute
• Howard Hayden of the University of Connecticut
• Roger Helmer^{[23]^}(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Conference_on_Climate_Change_%282009%29#cite_note-22)
• Craig Idso of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
• Roy Innis
• Mike Jungbauer^{[24]^}(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Conference_on_Climate_Change_%282009%29#cite_note-23)
• Sam Kazman of the Competitive Enterprise Institute
• Richard Keen: University of Colorado
• William Kininmonth: Former head of the Australian National Climate Center
• David Kreutzer^{[25]^}(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Conference_on_Climate_Change_%282009%29#cite_note-24)
• David Legates: University of Delaware
• Jay Lehr of the Heartland Institute
• Marlo Lewis of the Competitive Enterprise Institute
• Richard Lindzen: Massachusetts Institute of Technology; is described by the Heartland Institute as "one of the world’s leading experts in dynamic meteorology, especially planetary waves."^{[22]^}(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Conference_on_Climate_Change_%282009%29#cite_note-Astronaut-21)
• Keith Lockitch of the Ayn Rand Institute
• Craig Loehle: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement
• Anthony Lupo: University of Missouri
• Howard Maccabee^{[26]^}(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Conference_on_Climate_Change_%282009%29#cite_note-25)
• Thomas McClintock, Republican Congressman from California
• Stephen McIntyre: University of Toronto; is described as the "primary author of Climate Audit, a blog devoted to the analysis and discussion of climate data. He is a devastating critic of the temperature record of the past 1,000 years, particularly the work of Michael E. Mann, creator of the infamous “hockey stick” graph. That graph--thoroughly discredited in scientific circles--supposedly proved that mankind is responsible for a sharp increase in greenhouse gases."^{[22]^}(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Conference_on_Climate_Change_%282009%29#cite_note-Astronaut-21)
• Ross McKitrick: University of Guelph (Canada)
• Patrick Michaels: University of Virginia
• Barun Mitra
• Christopher Monckton of the Science and Public Policy Institute
• Marc Morano
• Iain Murray^{[27]^}(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Conference_on_Climate_Change_%282009%29#cite_note-26)
• Kevin Murphy: University of Chicago
• Joanne Nova: Author, The Skeptics Handbook
• Jim O’Brien: Florida State University
• Tim Patterson: Carleton University (Canada)
• Benny Peiser: Liverpool John Moores University (United Kingdom)
• Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute (France)
• Arthur Robinson of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine is described by Heartland as "the curator of a global warming petition signed by more than 32,000 American scientists, including more than 10,000 with doctorate degrees, rejecting the alarmist assertion that global warming has put the Earth in crisis and is caused primarily by mankind."^{[22]^}(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Conference_on_Climate_Change_%282009%29#cite_note-Astronaut-21)
• Harrison Schmitt^{[28]^}(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Conference_on_Climate_Change_%282009%29#cite_note-27)
• Joel M. Schwartz of the American Enterprise Institute
• Tom Segalstad^{[29]^}(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Conference_on_Climate_Change_%282009%29#cite_note-28)
• Nir Shaviv^{[30]^}(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Conference_on_Climate_Change_%282009%29#cite_note-29)
• S. Fred Singer of the Science and Environmental Policy Project
• Fred Smith: Competitive Enterprise Institute
• Lawrence Solomon: National Post (Canada)
• Willie Soon: Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
• Roy Spencer: University of Alabama in Huntsville; Spencer is the principal research scientist and team leader on NASA's Aqua satellite.
• John Sununu
• George Taylor: Oregon State University
• James M. Taylor of the Heartland Institute
• John Theon^{[31]^}(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Conference_on_Climate_Change_%282009%29#cite_note-30)
• Brian Valentine: U.S. Department of Energy
• Jan Veizer: University of Ottawa (Canada)
• Anthony Watts: SurfaceStations.org

Conference co-sponsors

On its conference website, the Heartland Institute states that "all of the event’s expenses will be covered by admission fees and individual and foundation donors to Heartland. No corporate sponsorships or dollars earmarked for the event were solicited or accepted."^{[2]^}(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Conference_on_Climate_Change_%282009%29#cite_note-Cosponsors-1) However, it does not disclose which foundations are contributing to the conference.

On its website, it lists co-sponsoring groups, as of January 20 2009, as being:^{[2]^}(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Conference_on_Climate_Change_%282009%29#cite_note-Cosponsors-1)

• Accuracy in Media
• African Center for Advocacy and Human Development
• Alternate Solutions Institute
• American Policy Center
• Americans for Prosperity
• Atlas Economic Research Foundation
• Australian Libertarian Society
• Ayn Rand Institute
• Business & Media Institute
• Carbon Sense Coalition
• Cascade Policy Center
• Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
• Climate Strategies Watch
• Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
• Competitive Enterprise Institute
• Cornwall Alliance
• Economic Thinking/E. Pluribus Unum Films
• Freedom Foundation of Minnesota
• Frontiers of Freedom
• George Marshall Institute
• The Heritage Foundation
• IceAgeNow.com
• International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project
• Initiative for Public Policy Analysis
• Institute for Private Enterprise
• Institute of Public Affairs
• Instituto De Libre Impresa
• Instituto Liberdade
• Instituto Bruno Leoni
• International Climate Science Coalition
• Liberales Institut
• Liberty Institute
• John Locke Foundation
• Manhattan Libertarian Party
• Mannkal Economic Foundation
• Minimal Government Thinkers
• Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
• Public Interest Institute
• Science and Public Policy Institute
• Science and Environmental Policy Project
• Sovereignty International
• Young America's Foundation

Conference website

Website: http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/newyork09.html

Proceedings: http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/proceedings.html

Articles and resources

Related SourceWatch articles

• Global warming skeptics
• International Conference on Climate Change (2008)
• Researching global warming skeptics
• SourceWatch:Project:Creating Articles on Sponsors and Speakers at The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change
• think tanks

References

1. ↑ "The 2009 International Conference on Climate Change", Heartland Institute website, accessed January 2009.
2. ↑ ^{2.0^}(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Conference_on_Climate_Change%282009%29#cite_ref-Cosponsors_1-0) ^{2.1^}(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Conference_on_Climate_Change%282009%29#cite_ref-Cosponsors_1-1) ^{2.2^}(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Conference_on_Climate_Change_%282009%29#cite_ref-Cosponsors_1-2) "Co-Sponsors", Heartland Institute, January 20, 2009.
3. ↑ "Global warming sceptics show money talks in New York", Leo Hickman, The Guardian, January 19, 2009.
4. ↑ "Heartland Institute's 2009 Climate Conference in New York: funding history of the sponsors", DeSmog Blog, February 24, 2004.
5. ↑ "Global Warming Skeptics Insist Humans Not at Fault", Washington Post, March 4, 2008.
6. ↑ "Even Skeptics Admit Global Warming is Real", David Biello and John Pavlus, Scientific American, January 2009.
7. ↑ "Not the IPCC (“NIPCC”) Report", Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt, RealClimate Blog, November 2008.
8. ↑ "Global Warming Facts", the Heartland Institute Global Warming page, January 2009.
9. ↑ ^{9.0^}(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Conference_on_Climate_Change%282009%29#cite_ref-RevkinNPR_8-0) ^{9.1^}(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Conference_on_Climate_Change%282009%29#cite_ref-RevkinNPR_8-1) "Climate Skeptics Gather In New York City", "Day to Day", NPR, March 9, 2009. (Link to audio file).
10. ↑ Russell Seitz, "A Letter from the Heartland", Adamant (blog), October 21, 2008.
11. ↑ "Conference Program", Heartland Institute website, accessed January 2009.
12. ↑ "Conference Podcasts", Heartland Institute website, January 2009.
13. ↑ Alexandre Aguiar, ""Dubious Connections between Global Warming and Extreme Weather Events", Presentation to the Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change (2009), March 9, 2009. (PowerPoint)
14. ↑ Christopher Booker, "Remember the Poor: A Christian Perspective on Energy Rationing", Presentation to the Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change (2009), March 10, 2009.
15. ↑ Gabriel Calzada, "Spain's New Economy: Boom and Bust of the Spanish Renewable Miracle", Presentation to the Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change (2009), March 9, 2009. (PowerPoint)
16. ↑ Piers Corbyn, "What Does and Does Not Cause Climate Change", Presentation to the Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change (2009), March 10, 2009. (PowerPoint)
17. ↑ John Dale Dunn, "Human Health Effects of Warming and Cooling", Presentation to the Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change (2009), March 10, 2009. (A copy of Dunn's presentation is not available).
18. ↑ Don Easterbrook, "'Global Warming' Is Over: Geologic, Oceanographic, and Solar Evidence for Global Cooling in the Coming Decades", Presentation to the Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change (2009), March 10, 2009. (PowerPoint)
19. ↑ "Carbon Dioxide Not Responsible for 20th Century Warming", Presentation to the Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change, March 9, 2009. (PowerPoint)
20. ↑ Indur Goklany, "Climate Change Impacts", Presentation to the Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change (2009), March 9, 2009. (PowerPoint)
21. ↑ Stanley Goldenberg, "Is There a Link between Global Warming and Hurricane Activity?", Presentation to the Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change (2009), March 9, 2009. (PowerPoint)
22. ↑ ^{22.0^}(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Conference_on_Climate_Change%282009%29#cite_ref-Astronaut_21-0) ^{22.1^}(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Conference_on_Climate_Change%282009%29#cite_ref-Astronaut_21-1) ^{22.2^}(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Conference_on_Climate_Change%282009%29#cite_ref-Astronaut_21-2) ^{22.3^}(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Conference_on_Climate_Change%282009%29#cite_ref-Astronaut_21-3) Dan Miller, "Astronaut Joins Global Warming Skeptics", Media Release, The Heartland Institute, January 2009.
23. ↑ Nir Shaviv, "The EU Parliament", Presentation to the Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change (2009), March 10, 2009. (A copy of Dunn's presentation is not available).
24. ↑ Mike Jungbauer, "Global Warming Science and Policymakers", Presentation to the Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change (2009), March 10, 2009. (PowerPoint)
25. ↑ David Kreutzer, "Modeling Results on the Effects of Cap and Trade", Presentation to the Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change (2009), March 9, 2009. (PowerPoint).
26. ↑ Howard Maccabee, "Untitles", Presentation to the Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change (2009), March 9, 2009. (PowerPoint)
27. ↑ Iain Murray, "Tracing Alarmism's Methods Back to Their Roots", Presentation to the Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change (2009), March 10, 2009. (PowerPoint)
28. ↑ Harrison Schmitt, "Climate Facts that Really Are Facts", Presentation to the Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change (2009), March 9, 2009. (Video download)
29. ↑ Tom Segalstad, "Carbon Isotope Mass Balance Modeling of Atmospheric vs. Oceanic CO2 (PowerPoint)", Presentation to the International Conference on Climate Change, March 2009.
30. ↑ Nir Shaviv, "New Solar-Climate Link and Implications for Our Understanding of Climate Change", Presentation to the Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change (2009), March 10, 2009. (A copy of Dunn's presentation is not available).
31. ↑ John Theon, "Is Climate Change Driven by Mankind: My Personal Journey", Presentation to the Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change (2009), March 10, 2009. (Download Video)

External resources

External articles

Heartland Institute Posts About the conference

• Joseph Bast, "Opening Remarks: 2008 International Conference on Climate Change", March 8, 2009.
• Dan Miller,"2009 International Conference on Climate Change: Update #1", Media Release, March 9, 2009.
• Dan Miller,"2009 International Conference on Climate Change: Update #2", Media Release, March 10, 2009.
• Dan Miller, "2009 International Conference on Climate Change: Update #3", Media Release, March 11, 2009.
• Dan Miller, "Climate Conference Ends On High Note", Heartland Perspectives, March 2009.

Articles about the conference

• Kevin Grandia, "Research on the "sponsors" behind the Heartland's New York Climate Change Conference", DeSmog Blog, February 29, 2009.
• Bob Burton, "The Monkeys and Their Organ Grinders", PR Watch.org, March 6, 2009.
• Colby Beck, "A roomful of cynics: A look at the non-experts speaking at Heartland Institute's denialist sideshow", Grist, March 6, 2009.
• Andrew Revkin, "Skeptics Question Warming, and Each Other", "Bot Earth" (blog), New York Times, March 8, 2009.
• Peter Dykstra, "Media Mayhem: Deny-a-palooza: How an annual climate deniers' conference in New York reminds me of Jim Carrey in 'Dumb and Dumber'", Mother Nature Network, March 9, 2009.
• Andrew C. Revkin, "Gathering of contrarians takes on 'climate alarm'", International Herald Tribune, March 9, 2009.
• "Czech leader joins meeting of climate change deniers", Guardian, March 9, 2009.
• "Climate Change Skeptics, Unite: Heartland Institute’s ‘Other’ Global Warming Gabfest", "Environmental Capital" (blog), Wall Street Journal, March 9, 2009.
• Jim Efstathiou Jr., "Climate Skeptics Challenge Obama ‘Mainstream’ Science (Update1)", Bloomberg, March 9, 2009.
• Peter Foster, "Heartland is keeping the lights on", Financial Post, March 07, 2009.
• Peter Foster, "The crumbling case for global warming", Nation Post, March 10, 2009.
• "Climate Skeptics Gather In New York City", "Day to Day", NPR, March 9, 2009. (Link to audio file).
• Harry Fuller, "Denial as a political position," ZDNet blog "GreenTech Pastures," March 9, 2009.
• Pete Chagnon, "The poor and the pocketbook - victims of global-warming alarmism," OneNewsNow, March 10, 2009.
• Suzanne Goldenberg, "Meet the sceptics: Barack Obama may be worried about greenhouse gases - but not everyone is", Guardian, March 12, 2009.
• Andrew Revkin, "No Skepticism on the Energy Gap", New York Times, March 11, 2009.
• John H. Fund, "Warming to Cockburn and Vice Versa", Hawaii Reporter, March 11, 2009.
• Marc Sheppard, "The Clear and Cohesive Message of the International Conference on Climate Change", American Thinker (blog), March 15, 2009.
• Miranda Devine, "Climate sceptics fight tide of alarmism", Sydney Morning Herald, March 13, 2009.
• Harold Brown, "Americans cool as activists cry wolf over global warming", The Daily Citizen (Georgia), March 13, 2009.
• Christopher Booker, "Nobody listens to the real climate change experts", Telegraph.co.uk, March 16, 2009.
• Ed Hiserodt, "CORE Leader Blasts Global-warming Alarmists," The New American, March 24, 2009.
• Phil Richardson (Oklahoma state representative), "A questionable basis for energy legislation: Point of view, cap-and-trade debate," The Oklahoman "NewsOK" website, March 30, 2009.

TCS announcement

Hundreds of scientists to attend; conference organizers to challenge "myth of global warming crisis".

Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic and current President of the European Union, is scheduled to give the keynote address at the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change.

The conference is devoted to scientists and policymakers skeptical of human-induced global warming, and is intended in part as a counterpoint to the UN IPCC-organized climate conferences. It is being held March 8-10 in New York City.

Some of the many scientists scheduled to speak include:

• Richard Lindzen, atmospheric physics, MIT
• Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
• Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
• William Gray, atmospheric science, Colorado State University
• Fred Singer, atmospheric science, University of Virginia
• Tim Patterson, paleoclimatology, Carleton University
• David Legates, Delaware State Climatologist
• Syun Akasofu, University of Alaska, founder International Arctic Research Center,
• Fred Goldberg, Secretary-General, Swedish Royal Institute of Technology

Appearing as well will be ex-US Senator and Apollo moonwalker Jack Schmitt, who also has a Ph.D in earth science.

The event is expected to draw 1,000 participants, double the size of the 2008 conference. It is being hosted by the Heartland Institute, a nonpartisan think tank. According to Heartland, the event is funded entirely from personal and institutional donors, with no corporate funding accepted.

DailyTech will be providing live coverage from the conference floor.

14 February 12 at 4:08pm

Fake science, fakexperts, funny finances, free of tax

Modern anti-science was created by the tobacco industry in the 1950s and then used against climate science, often by the same well-experienced think tanks and individuals.  Tobacco anti-science is strangely entangled with climate anti-science, as the attached report shows in detail involving Fred Singer's SEPP, Joseph Bast's Heartland, and more.

S. Fred Singer is President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), but has done almost all the work himself for 20 years., including help for tobacco in the early 1990s. Research for Weird Science sent me on a  trek through his and other IRS Form 990s, which unearthed many curiosities of strange governance, fakery and funny finances, all tax-free.

Singer claimed Frederick Seitz as Chairman for two years after his demise and 20 years after a Philip Morris staffer had written in 1989:

“Dr. Seitz is quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice.”

SEPP’s finances were curious.  SEPP paid no salaries, even for Singer’s 60-hour workweeks.  Money flowed oddly.  Asset trades often exceeded normal income and they accumulated to $1.5M, tax-free.   Then one money trail led to Heartland.

Heartland Institute’s Joseph Bast staunchly defended “Joe Camel,” the infamous campaign to addict younger children.  Heartland got tobacco funding for many years, along with a Philip Morris Board member.

Whitney Ball’s DONORS TRUST funded a major expansion of Heartland climate anti-science.  Singer collected old associates to help write “NonGovernmental International Panel on Climate Change“ (NIPCC) reports, filled with unsupported claims and long-refuted anti-science.

He was helped by Craig Idso, of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (CDCDGC), whose money flows also seem unusual.  Robert Ferguson’s Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) was a website and a  PO Box in a UPS store and he was actually a CSCDGC employee.

Under Jay Lehr and James Taylor, anti-science permeated Heartland’s Environment and Climate News (E&CN) sent mostly to elected officials.  Heartland incessantly touted its access and influence with such officials, but its tax forms claimed no lobbying.  It ran “fake science” conferences, paying for government staff attendance.  It sent money to foreign non-charity advocacy groups, sent anti-science handbooks to school boards and urged parents to complain.  It has been criticized in Nature and Science.

Free speech allows people to express opinions, even lie about facts, but tax-free operation is a revocable privilege.  Spreading factual untruths and confusion about smoking or climate science is neither research nor education in the public interest.

Read the report, at least the first 21 pages, backed by nearly 200 of detailed backup.

This report was scheduled to be published in a few days,  and by astonishing coincidence, just today we see Heartland Institute Exposed.  The report was done entirely from public sources, but today's new information is quite consistent and fills some holes.  However, the unnamed large Anonymous donor is now seen to be someone hiding behind DONORS TRUST, and some of the smaller ones dedicating funds appear in pp.57-59, with red itemizations. We also see some of the actual payments I had to infer.

03/11/12 CORRECTION:  p.58 omitted a DONORS CAPITAL item for 2008: “For media materials $100,000”, which should be added to various subtotals, making them consistent with the $4,610,000 reported on p.57, Fig. H.1.4.  H/T to Michael Fisher.

Attachment    Size

fake.pdf    4.99 MB

Desmogblog (http://s.tt/1982E)

14 February 12 at 2:13pm

Heartland Institute Exposed: Internal Documents Unmask Heart of Climate Denial Machine

Internal Heartland Institute strategy and funding documents obtained by DeSmogBlog expose the heart of the climate denial machine – its current plans, many of its funders, and details that confirm what DeSmogBlog and others have reported for years. The heart of the climate denial machine relies on huge corporate and foundation funding from U.S. businesses including Microsoft, Koch Industries, Altria (parent company of Philip Morris) RJR Tobacco and more.

We are releasing the entire trove of documents now to allow crowd-sourcing of the material. Here are a few quick highlights, stay tuned for much more.

-Confirmation that Charles G. Koch Foundation is again funding Heartland Institute’s global warming disinformation campaign. [Update: Apparently even the Koch brothers think the Heartland Institute's climate denial program is too toxic to fund. On Wednesday, Koch confirmed that it did not cut a check for the $200K mentioned in the strategy memo after all. A statement released on KochFacts.com and the charleskochfoundationfacts.org states that "…the Charles Koch Foundation provided $25,000 to the Heartland Institute in 2011 for research in healthcare, not climate change, and this was the first and only donation the Foundation made to the institute in more than a decade. The Foundation has made no further commitments of funding to Heartland.”]

Greenpeace’s Koch reports show the last time Heartland received Koch funding was in 1999.

The **January 2012 Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy** states:

    “We will also pursue additional support from the Charles G. Koch Foundation. They returned as a Heartland donor in 2011 with a contribution of $200,000. We expect to push up their level of support in 2012 and gain access to their network of philanthropists, if our focus continues to align with their interests. Other contributions will be pursued for this work, especially from corporations whose interests are threatened by climate policies.”

-Heartland Institute’s global warming denial machine is chiefly – and perhaps entirely – funded by one Anonymous donor:

    Our climate work is attractive to funders, especially our key Anonymous Donor (whose contribution dropped from $1,664,150 in 2010 to $979,000 in 2011 - about 20% of our total 2011 revenue). He has promised an increase in 2012…”

-Confirmation of exact amounts flowing to certain key climate contrarians.

    “funding for high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist AGW message. At the moment, this funding goes primarily to Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), Fred Singer ($5,000 per month, plus expenses), Robert Carter ($1,667 per month), and a number of other individuals, but we will consider expanding it, if funding can be found.”

-As Brad Johnson reported today at ThinkProgress, confirmation that Heartland is working with David Wojick, a U.S. Energy Department contract worker and coal industry consultant, to develop a ‘Global Warming Curriculum for K-12 Schools.’

-Forbes and other business press are favored outlets for Heartland’s dissemination of climate denial messages, and the group is worried about maintaining that exclusive space. They note in particular the work of Dr. Peter Gleick:

    “Efforts at places such as Forbes are especially important now that they have begun to allow high-profile climate scientists (such as Gleick) to post warmist science essays that counter our own. This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out.” (emphasis added)

Note the irony here that Heartland Institute – one of the major mouthpieces behind the debunked ‘Climategate’ email theft who harped about the suppression of denier voices in peer-reviewed literature – now defending its turf in the unscientific business magazine realm.

-Interesting mentions of Andrew Revkin as a potential ally worth “cultivating,” along with Judith Curry.[cf cointelpro atrazine flip attempts]

    “Efforts might also include cultivating more neutral voices with big audiences (such as Revkin at DotEarth/NYTimes, who has a well-known antipathy for some of the more extreme AGW communicators such as Romm, Trenberth, and Hansen) or Curry (who has become popular with our supporters).”

-Confirmation that skeptic blogger Anthony Watts is part of Heartland’s funded network of misinformation communicators.

    “We have also pledged to help raise around $90,000 in 2012 for Anthony Watts to help him create a new website to track temperature station data.”

Stay tuned for more details as DeSmogBlog and others dig through this trove of Heartland Institute documents. The Heartland Institute's legacy of evasion of this level of transparency and accountability has now been shattered.

Read the documents [all PDF (except one .doc)]:

January 2012 Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy

Minutes of January 17 board meeting (.doc)

Agenda for January 17, 2012 Board Meeting

Board Meeting Package January 17, 2012

Binder 1 (maybe overlap with above documents)

2012 Heartland Budget

2012 Heartland Fundraising Plan

2010 Heartland IRS Form 990 (public document)

Stay tuned… see also DeSmogBlog's Richard Littlemore's coverage.

**The Heartland Institute alleges that the 2012 climate strategy document is a "fake" and has threatened the DeSmogBlog with legal action. However, the organization has not provided any proof to support its allegations. We see no basis in fact or law for us to remove this document, and will leave it available in the public interest.

Related Profile(s) :

S. Fred Singer

Craig Idso

Bob Carter

Anthony Watts

The Heartland Institute

==

Modern anti-science was created by the tobacco industry in the 1950s and then used against climate science, often by the same well-experienced think tanks and individuals.  Tobacco anti-science is strangely entangled with climate anti-science, as the attached report shows in detail involving Fred Singer's SEPP, Joseph Bast's Heartland, and more.

S. Fred Singer is President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), but has done almost all the work himself for 20 years., including help for tobacco in the early 1990s. Research for Weird Science sent me on a  trek through his and other IRS Form 990s, which unearthed many curiosities of strange governance, fakery and funny finances, all tax-free.

Singer claimed Frederick Seitz as Chairman for two years after his demise and 20 years after a Philip Morris staffer had written in 1989:

“Dr. Seitz is quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice.”

SEPP’s finances were curious.  SEPP paid no salaries, even for Singer’s 60-hour workweeks.  Money flowed oddly.  Asset trades often exceeded normal income and they accumulated to $1.5M, tax-free.   Then one money trail led to Heartland.

Heartland Institute’s Joseph Bast staunchly defended “Joe Camel,” the infamous campaign to addict younger children.  Heartland got tobacco funding for many years, along with a Philip Morris Board member.

Whitney Ball’s DONORS TRUST funded a major expansion of Heartland climate anti-science.  Singer collected old associates to help write “NonGovernmental International Panel on Climate Change“ (NIPCC) reports, filled with unsupported claims and long-refuted anti-science.

He was helped by Craig Idso, of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (CDCDGC), whose money flows also seem unusual.  Robert Ferguson’s Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) was a website and a  PO Box in a UPS store and he was actually a CSCDGC employee.

Under Jay Lehr and James Taylor, anti-science permeated Heartland’s Environment and Climate News (E&CN) sent mostly to elected officials.  Heartland incessantly touted its access and influence with such officials, but its tax forms claimed no lobbying.  It ran “fake science” conferences, paying for government staff attendance.  It sent money to foreign non-charity advocacy groups, sent anti-science handbooks to school boards and urged parents to complain.  It has been criticized in Nature and Science.

Free speech allows people to express opinions, even lie about facts, but tax-free operation is a revocable privilege.  Spreading factual untruths and confusion about smoking or climate science is neither research nor education in the public interest.

Read the report, at least the first 21 pages, backed by nearly 200 of detailed backup.

This report was scheduled to be published in a few days,  and by astonishing coincidence, just today we see Heartland Institute Exposed.  The report was done entirely from public sources, but today's new information is quite consistent and fills some holes.  However, the unnamed large Anonymous donor is now seen to be someone hiding behind DONORS TRUST, and some of the smaller ones dedicating funds appear in pp.57-59, with red itemizations. We also see some of the actual payments I had to infer.

03/11/12 CORRECTION:  p.58 omitted a DONORS CAPITAL item for 2008: “For media materials $100,000”, which should be added to various subtotals, making them consistent with the $4,610,000 reported on p.57, Fig. H.1.4.  H/T to Michael Fisher.

Attachment    Size

fake.pdf    4.99 MB

Desmogblog (http://s.tt/1982E)

14 February 12 at 2:13pm

Heartland Institute Exposed: Internal Documents Unmask Heart of Climate Denial Machine

Internal Heartland Institute strategy and funding documents obtained by DeSmogBlog expose the heart of the climate denial machine – its current plans, many of its funders, and details that confirm what DeSmogBlog and others have reported for years. The heart of the climate denial machine relies on huge corporate and foundation funding from U.S. businesses including Microsoft, Koch Industries, Altria (parent company of Philip Morris) RJR Tobacco and more.

We are releasing the entire trove of documents now to allow crowd-sourcing of the material. Here are a few quick highlights, stay tuned for much more.

-Confirmation that Charles G. Koch Foundation is again funding Heartland Institute’s global warming disinformation campaign. [Update: Apparently even the Koch brothers think the Heartland Institute's climate denial program is too toxic to fund. On Wednesday, Koch confirmed that it did not cut a check for the $200K mentioned in the strategy memo after all. A statement released on KochFacts.com and the charleskochfoundationfacts.org states that "…the Charles Koch Foundation provided $25,000 to the Heartland Institute in 2011 for research in healthcare, not climate change, and this was the first and only donation the Foundation made to the institute in more than a decade. The Foundation has made no further commitments of funding to Heartland.”]

Greenpeace’s Koch reports show the last time Heartland received Koch funding was in 1999.

The **January 2012 Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy** states:

    “We will also pursue additional support from the Charles G. Koch Foundation. They returned as a Heartland donor in 2011 with a contribution of $200,000. We expect to push up their level of support in 2012 and gain access to their network of philanthropists, if our focus continues to align with their interests. Other contributions will be pursued for this work, especially from corporations whose interests are threatened by climate policies.”

-Heartland Institute’s global warming denial machine is chiefly – and perhaps entirely – funded by one Anonymous donor:

    Our climate work is attractive to funders, especially our key Anonymous Donor (whose contribution dropped from $1,664,150 in 2010 to $979,000 in 2011 - about 20% of our total 2011 revenue). He has promised an increase in 2012…”

-Confirmation of exact amounts flowing to certain key climate contrarians.

    “funding for high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist AGW message. At the moment, this funding goes primarily to Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), Fred Singer ($5,000 per month, plus expenses), Robert Carter ($1,667 per month), and a number of other individuals, but we will consider expanding it, if funding can be found.”

-As Brad Johnson reported today at ThinkProgress, confirmation that Heartland is working with David Wojick, a U.S. Energy Department contract worker and coal industry consultant, to develop a ‘Global Warming Curriculum for K-12 Schools.’

-Forbes and other business press are favored outlets for Heartland’s dissemination of climate denial messages, and the group is worried about maintaining that exclusive space. They note in particular the work of Dr. Peter Gleick:

    “Efforts at places such as Forbes are especially important now that they have begun to allow high-profile climate scientists (such as Gleick) to post warmist science essays that counter our own. This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out.” (emphasis added)

Note the irony here that Heartland Institute – one of the major mouthpieces behind the debunked ‘Climategate’ email theft who harped about the suppression of denier voices in peer-reviewed literature – now defending its turf in the unscientific business magazine realm.

-Interesting mentions of Andrew Revkin as a potential ally worth “cultivating,” along with Judith Curry.[cf cointelpro atrazine flip attempts]

    “Efforts might also include cultivating more neutral voices with big audiences (such as Revkin at DotEarth/NYTimes, who has a well-known antipathy for some of the more extreme AGW communicators such as Romm, Trenberth, and Hansen) or Curry (who has become popular with our supporters).”

-Confirmation that skeptic blogger Anthony Watts is part of Heartland’s funded network of misinformation communicators.

    “We have also pledged to help raise around $90,000 in 2012 for Anthony Watts to help him create a new website to track temperature station data.”

Stay tuned for more details as DeSmogBlog and others dig through this trove of Heartland Institute documents. The Heartland Institute's legacy of evasion of this level of transparency and accountability has now been shattered.

Read the documents [all PDF (except one .doc)]:

January 2012 Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy

Minutes of January 17 board meeting (.doc)

Agenda for January 17, 2012 Board Meeting

Board Meeting Package January 17, 2012

Binder 1 (maybe overlap with above documents)

2012 Heartland Budget

2012 Heartland Fundraising Plan

2010 Heartland IRS Form 990 (public document)

Stay tuned… see also DeSmogBlog's Richard Littlemore's coverage.

**The Heartland Institute alleges that the 2012 climate strategy document is a "fake" and has threatened the DeSmogBlog with legal action. However, the organization has not provided any proof to support its allegations. We see no basis in fact or law for us to remove this document, and will leave it available in the public interest.

Related Profile(s) :

S. Fred Singer

Craig Idso

Bob Carter

Anthony Watts

The Heartland Institute

==

Internal Heartland Institute strategy and funding documents obtained by DeSmogBlog expose the heart of the climate denial machine – its current plans, many of its funders, and details that confirm what DeSmogBlog and others have reported for years. The heart of the climate denial machine relies on huge corporate and foundation funding from U.S. businesses including Microsoft, Koch Industries, Altria (parent company of Philip Morris) RJR Tobacco and more.

We are releasing the entire trove of documents now to allow crowd-sourcing of the material. Here are a few quick highlights, stay tuned for much more.

-Confirmation that Charles G. Koch Foundation is again funding Heartland Institute’s global warming disinformation campaign. [Update: Apparently even the Koch brothers think the Heartland Institute's climate denial program is too toxic to fund. On Wednesday, Koch confirmed that it did not cut a check for the $200K mentioned in the strategy memo after all. A statement released on KochFacts.com and the charleskochfoundationfacts.org states that "…the Charles Koch Foundation provided $25,000 to the Heartland Institute in 2011 for research in healthcare, not climate change, and this was the first and only donation the Foundation made to the institute in more than a decade. The Foundation has made no further commitments of funding to Heartland.”]

Greenpeace’s Koch reports show the last time Heartland received Koch funding was in 1999.

The **January 2012 Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy** states:

    “We will also pursue additional support from the Charles G. Koch Foundation. They returned as a Heartland donor in 2011 with a contribution of $200,000. We expect to push up their level of support in 2012 and gain access to their network of philanthropists, if our focus continues to align with their interests. Other contributions will be pursued for this work, especially from corporations whose interests are threatened by climate policies.”

-Heartland Institute’s global warming denial machine is chiefly – and perhaps entirely – funded by one Anonymous donor:

    Our climate work is attractive to funders, especially our key Anonymous Donor (whose contribution dropped from $1,664,150 in 2010 to $979,000 in 2011 - about 20% of our total 2011 revenue). He has promised an increase in 2012…”

-Confirmation of exact amounts flowing to certain key climate contrarians.

    “funding for high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist AGW message. At the moment, this funding goes primarily to Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), Fred Singer ($5,000 per month, plus expenses), Robert Carter ($1,667 per month), and a number of other individuals, but we will consider expanding it, if funding can be found.”

-As Brad Johnson reported today at ThinkProgress, confirmation that Heartland is working with David Wojick, a U.S. Energy Department contract worker and coal industry consultant, to develop a ‘Global Warming Curriculum for K-12 Schools.’

-Forbes and other business press are favored outlets for Heartland’s dissemination of climate denial messages, and the group is worried about maintaining that exclusive space. They note in particular the work of Dr. Peter Gleick:

    “Efforts at places such as Forbes are especially important now that they have begun to allow high-profile climate scientists (such as Gleick) to post warmist science essays that counter our own. This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out.” (emphasis added)

Note the irony here that Heartland Institute – one of the major mouthpieces behind the debunked ‘Climategate’ email theft who harped about the suppression of denier voices in peer-reviewed literature – now defending its turf in the unscientific business magazine realm.

-Interesting mentions of Andrew Revkin as a potential ally worth “cultivating,” along with Judith Curry.[cf cointelpro atrazine flip attempts]

    “Efforts might also include cultivating more neutral voices with big audiences (such as Revkin at DotEarth/NYTimes, who has a well-known antipathy for some of the more extreme AGW communicators such as Romm, Trenberth, and Hansen) or Curry (who has become popular with our supporters).”

-Confirmation that skeptic blogger Anthony Watts is part of Heartland’s funded network of misinformation communicators.

    “We have also pledged to help raise around $90,000 in 2012 for Anthony Watts to help him create a new website to track temperature station data.”

Stay tuned for more details as DeSmogBlog and others dig through this trove of Heartland Institute documents. The Heartland Institute's legacy of evasion of this level of transparency and accountability has now been shattered.

Read the documents [all PDF (except one .doc)]:

January 2012 Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy

Minutes of January 17 board meeting (.doc)

Agenda for January 17, 2012 Board Meeting

Board Meeting Package January 17, 2012

Binder 1 (maybe overlap with above documents)

2012 Heartland Budget

2012 Heartland Fundraising Plan

2010 Heartland IRS Form 990 (public document)

Stay tuned… see also DeSmogBlog's Richard Littlemore's coverage.

**The Heartland Institute alleges that the 2012 climate strategy document is a "fake" and has threatened the DeSmogBlog with legal action. However, the organization has not provided any proof to support its allegations. We see no basis in fact or law for us to remove this document, and will leave it available in the public interest.

Related Profile(s) :

S. Fred Singer

Craig Idso

Bob Carter

Anthony Watts

The Heartland Institute

Attachment    Size

2012 Climate Strategy.pdf    96.54 KB

Minutes of January 17 meeting.doc    50.84 KB

Board Meeting Package January 17.pdf    7.47 KB

Agenda for January 17 Meeting.pdf    8.49 KB

Binder1.pdf    67.68 KB

(1-15-2012) 2012 Heartland Budget.pdf    126.68 KB

(1-15-2012) 2012 Fundraising Plan.pdf    91.32 KB

2010_IRS_Form_990.pdf    2.7 MB

Desmogblog (http://s.tt/197zO)

==

It wasn’t just the billboards: How activists brought down the Heartland Institute

By Daniel Souweine

It’s been a rough few weeks for the Heartland Institute, the “intellectual” nexus of the fossil fuel-powered machine that disparages climate science in the United States. Nineteen corporations have pulled more than $1 million in expected funding for the institute, leading President Joe Bast to ask attendees at the recent Heartland climate-denial conference whether they had a “rich uncle” who could help out. Seriously.

At a time when most news about climate change is bad, Heartland’s decline has been a rare bright spot. How did it come about? In the reductive rendering of the mainstream media, the narrative has become that Heartland simply overplayed its hand by launching a billboard campaign comparing people who believe in global warming to the Unabomber, one of the single dumbest PR moves in recent history. Others have gone deeper, pointing out that Heartland has been painting itself into the crazy corner for a long time, and its lies were bound to catch up with it eventually. In that view, Heartland’s demise was essentially inevitable.

The infamous Unabomber billboard.

While these narratives have elements of truth — the billboards were incredibly stupid, and Heartland has been lying for a long time — neither offers a full explanation because both deemphasize the crucial role of citizen action. Simply put, the post-billboard exodus of Heartland’s corporate donors would have been neither as big nor as fast if not for the actions of thousands of everyday Americans calling those donors to account. Indeed, it might not have happened at all.

For those who haven’t been closely following the saga, here is the basic chronology. In February, documents containing a list of Heartland funders were leaked to a number of bloggers by climate scientist Peter Gleick, who risked his professional reputation to expose the sources of Heartland’s support. Two days later, the organization I work for, Forecast the Facts, launched a campaign calling on all corporate funders of Heartland to withdraw their support, with our initial focus on General Motors. Within a week, more than 20,000 people, including 10,000 GM owners, had signed on. After adding their names to the effort, those citizen-activists then called GM, posted hundreds of comments on GM’s Facebook page, uploaded photos of themselves with their GM cars, showed up at events where GM’s CEO was speaking, and generally made it clear that they were extremely upset about GM’s Heartland association. After weeks of pressure, including considerable media coverage, GM pulled its support on March 28 — more than a month before the now infamous billboard went up.

Forecast the Facts isn’t an established player; our ability to influence General Motors was not due to our reputation. It was entirely the result of our active members, who organized around an idea and spoke in a louder voice than any single person or institution could.

Because GM’s pullout happened before Heartland’s Unabomber messaging fiasco — a key point that’s been overlooked by many media outlets — it offers the clearest demonstration of how citizen activism can impact corporations. There is literally nothing more valuable to a public-facing company like General Motors than its brand. And in the wake of the government bailout, GM has a great deal invested in building its environmental identity. Exhibit A: The Chevy Volt. Twenty thousand customers and potential customers pissed off about GM’s ties to climate-change denial represented a real threat to GM’s image makeover. Which is why GM’s CEO agreed to review the matter personally, and eventually decided that the company’s 20-year relationship with Heartland was just not worth the potential brand damage.

In the weeks following GM’s announcement, Forecast the Facts staff, together with partners at Greenpeace, contacted the rest of Heartland’s corporate donors to ask why they were still supporting climate-change denial. In doing so, we made clear that we were speaking on behalf of the 20,000 people who had signed on to the campaign. And our questions sparked conversations within many of those companies about whether the lobbying that Heartland did for them was worth the risk to their brands.

Then came the billboards. The companies that had already been thinking about leaving because of the aforementioned public pressure immediately did so. Another 150,000 people joined our campaign through groups including 350.org, SumOfUs.org, the League of Conservation Voters, and the Sierra Club. And again, these people did more than just sign a petition. Thousands posted on company Facebook pages and chipped in to fund billboards calling out remaining Heartland holdouts, hundreds made phone calls to corporate headquarters, and dozens showed up in person to protest Heartland’s conference. All of those actions sent a message to Heartland’s remaining donors: There are a lot of people who care about this issue, and your brand is at risk. In response, corporate supporters have continued to scurry for the exits.

I’ve asked a number of people why citizen activism tends to get short shrift, and I’ve gotten a lot of thoughtful responses. One of them stuck out as the most likely explanation: People like the idea that Heartland carried within it the seeds of its own destruction — that is, Heartland consists of a bunch of unhinged conspiracy theorists who mislead the public for a living, and they were destined to eventually destroy themselves because scientific truth inevitably wins. While that teleology is attractive, it ignores the fact that the truth only wins when enough people stand up on its behalf.

Institutions like Heartland don’t fail just because they lie to the public. If that were true, Heartland would have disintegrated a long time ago, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce would be defunct, and the corporate-funded campaign to discredit science would no longer hinder our societal response to the climate threat. Institutions like Heartland only crumble when people speak up and say they are tired of being lied to, and provide a credible threat to whomever makes the misinformation possible — in this case, hypocritical corporate donors that profess to care about climate change while simultaneously supporting a group dedicated to the exact opposite purpose.

A shift in cultural attitudes and attendant policy changes will only come when enough people consistently, loudly, and unrepentantly reject climate denial and demand action. So when everyday people do exactly that, and their actions make an impact, they deserve to be credited. We need to reinforce the behavior that is our only hope for real progress on climate change.

Daniel Souweine directs the climate and energy organizing project at Citizen Engagement Lab, which recently launched ForecastTheFacts.org, a campaign to push back against climate-change denial.

top 28 skeptic funders http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/30/companies-block-action-climate-change/print

Top US companies shelling out to block action on climate change

Analysis of 28 companies finds cases of support for thinktanks that misrepresent climate science, including Heartland Institute

   Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent

   guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 30 May 2012 13.49 EDT

US oil and Energy major companies lobby in Washington against green policies ( lobbyist )

Oil company heads during the US Senate finance hearing on oil and gas tax incentives on 11 May 2011. Photograph: Scott J. Ferrell/Getty Images

Some of America's top companies are spending heavily to block action on climate change or discredit climate science, despite public commitments to sustainable and green values, a new report has found.

An analysis of 28 Standard & Poor 500 publicly traded companies by researchers from the Union of Concerned Scientists exposed a sharp disconnect in some cases between PR message and less visible activities, with companies quietly lobbying against climate policy or funding groups which work to discredit climate science.

The findings are in line with the recent expose of the Heartland Institute. Over the years, the ultra-conservative organisation devoted to discrediting climate science received funds from a long list of companies which had public commitments to sustainability.

The disconnect in this instance was especially stark in the researchers' analysis of oil giants ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil, and the electricity company DTE energy.

But even General Electric Company, which ranks climate change as a pillar of its corporate policy on its website, had supported trade groups and thinktanks that misrepresent climate science, the researchers found.

Caterpillar Inc, despite its public commitment to sustainability, also worked behind the scenes to block action on climate change. The company spent more than $16m (£10.3m) on lobbying during the study, with nearly five times as much of that spent lobbying to block climate action than on pro-environmental policies.

Other big corporate players were fairly consistent with their public image. Nike and NRG Energy Inc lobbied in support of climate change policy and supported conservation groups.

Peabody Energy Corporation, which produces coal, was ranked the most obstructionist of any of the companies. It spent more than $33m to lobby Congress against environmental measures and supporting trade groups and think tanks which spread disinformation about climate science, the researchers found.

"The thing we found most surprising in doing this research is just how all 28 companies expressed concern about climate change," said Francesca Grifo who heads the UCS scientific integrity programme. "But when we took a deeper look we found that a lot of the actions they took weren't connected to the messages."

The result of the disconnect was growing confusion about climate science, the researchers said. That made it more difficult to push for environmental protections.

The study was focused on the years 2009 and 2010, and looked at the companies' responses to moves by the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate carbon emissions and the failed attempt by Congress to pass a climate change law.

It also looked at lobbying and political contributions surrounding the 2010 referendum to overturn California's climate change regulations.

But the researchers acknowledged that they were handicapped by a lack of transparency about corporate donations and lobbying, which made it difficult to determine exactly how companies were trying to exert political influence.

"Given the inconspicuous ways in which companies can utilize supposedly independent groups to further their own agendas, the funding of industry groups is an important pathway through which corporations influence the national climate conversation without accountability," the analysis said.

Today, behind closed doors in Charlotte, North Carolina, legislators from 15 states will meet with the oil and gas industry to discuss so-called “model legislation” as part of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). The result could be laws that handicap renewable energy targets — while creating loopholes for fossil fuels, written directly by the oil and gas industry itself.

ALEC has faced backlash recently for its role in crafting Florida’s Stand Your Ground laws. Now the organization is taking the same secretive approach to kill renewable energy development across the country.

Oil and gas corporations have a very strong role in politics through groups like Americans For Prosperity, American Petroleum Institute, and, of course, ALEC. Four of the largest oil and gas corporations and two of the most profitable U.S. corporations overall, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, and BP, sit on ALEC’s task forces. And so today, according to documents posted by Common Cause, representatives from these and other energy groups will discuss potential legislation that would undermine clean energy standards and limit regulations of polluting industries.

The agenda items illustrate ALEC’s objectives. An economist from the oil lobby American Petroleum Institute leads a discussion on oil and gas prices, and a few of the panels include, “The Dirty Truth Behind Reusable Bags” and “Resolution Supporting a Reasonable Compliance Timeline and Economywide Impact Study of EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Rule.” Peabody Energy — one of the largest coal companies in the world — will give the presentation on “Regulation Through Litigation Of Greenhouse Gases Is Unsound Public Policy.”

ALEC already benefits from special exemption from some state laws: For example, South Carolina, Indiana, and Colorado have specifically exempted ALEC from lobbying status.

The oil industry’s astroturfing does not end with ALEC. Heartland Institute, part of the consortium of ultra-conservative think tanks leading a broad attack on clean energy, will also speak at ALEC’s meeting. Americans For Prosperity, funded by money from the Koch brothers, is also involved in Big Oil’s PR campaign against clean energy.

We have already seen oil dominating election ad spending this year, with well over $24 million spent by groups like Americans for Prosperity and American Energy Alliance since January. More than 80 percent of election year attack ads have focused on energy — all of them thoroughly debunked.

GM pulls out Unabomber billboard  http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/may/04/heartland-institute-global-warming-murder?INTCMP=SRCH

microsoft maybe out, several insurance co's, no apology:

experts defect?

Their website also lists as “Heartland Experts” many of the most prominent advocates of climate science denial: John Christy, Joseph D’Aleo, Myron Ebell, Richard Lindzen, Bjorn Lomborg, Phelim McAleer, Ann McElhinney, Patrick Michaels, Steve Milloy, Lord Christopher Monckton, Marc Morano, Benny Peiser [bailed?] , Ian Plimer, Harrison Schmitt, Fred Singer, Fred Smith, Roy Spencer, Anthony Watts, and, last but not least, Roger Pielke.

 ===

Today, behind closed doors in Charlotte, North Carolina, legislators from 15 states will meet with the oil and gas industry to discuss so-called “model legislation” as part of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). The result could be laws that handicap renewable energy targets — while creating loopholes for fossil fuels, written directly by the oil and gas industry itself.

ALEC has faced backlash recently for its role in crafting Florida’s Stand Your Ground laws. Now the organization is taking the same secretive approach to kill renewable energy development across the country.

Oil and gas corporations have a very strong role in politics through groups like Americans For Prosperity, American Petroleum Institute, and, of course, ALEC. Four of the largest oil and gas corporations and two of the most profitable U.S. corporations overall, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, and BP, sit on ALEC’s task forces. And so today, according to documents posted by Common Cause, representatives from these and other energy groups will discuss potential legislation that would undermine clean energy standards and limit regulations of polluting industries.

The agenda items illustrate ALEC’s objectives. An economist from the oil lobby American Petroleum Institute leads a discussion on oil and gas prices, and a few of the panels include, “The Dirty Truth Behind Reusable Bags” and “Resolution Supporting a Reasonable Compliance Timeline and Economywide Impact Study of EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Rule.” Peabody Energy — one of the largest coal companies in the world — will give the presentation on “Regulation Through Litigation Of Greenhouse Gases Is Unsound Public Policy.”

ALEC already benefits from special exemption from some state laws: For example, South Carolina, Indiana, and Colorado have specifically exempted ALEC from lobbying status.

The oil industry’s astroturfing does not end with ALEC. Heartland Institute, part of the consortium of ultra-conservative think tanks leading a broad attack on clean energy, will also speak at ALEC’s meeting. Americans For Prosperity, funded by money from the Koch brothers, is also involved in Big Oil’s PR campaign against clean energy.

We have already seen oil dominating election ad spending this year, with well over $24 million spent by groups like Americans for Prosperity and American Energy Alliance since January. More than 80 percent of election year attack ads have focused on energy — all of them thoroughly debunked.

http://eenews.net/public/climatewire/2012/05/07/2

Exxon pulls out:

http://www.iwatchnews.org/2008/09/30/3047/global-warming-heated-denials

New leadership

Over the past few years, the Heartland Institute of Chicago has emerged as the lead organizer of global warming skepticism. Indeed, it was Heartland that organized the gathering of hundreds of skeptics in New York in March that featured comedian Slagle as well as scientists, lobbyists, and nonprofit groups.

A think tank devoted to reducing the size of government, Heartland received more than $670,000 from ExxonMobil from 1998-2006, before the company stopped funding it in 2007. But Dan Miller, executive vice president of the Heartland Institute, called its funding from ExxonMobil “pocket change.”

“We can live without Exxon’s contribution just fine,” Miller said.

At its March conference, Heartland organizers made a point to say that no corporate funding financed the event. Prominent speakers at the conference included the libertarian Cato Institute’s Patrick Michaels, Willie Soon of the Marshall Institute, and Václav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic.

The event’s closing speech was given by ABC News reporter John Stossel, who gave the audience pointers on how to better sell their arguments to the media. (See our blog post in July about Stossel’s speech at the conference.) Stossel said he wasn’t paid for his speech, though the Heartland Institute did make a $4,750 donation to the Wellfleet Conservation Trust on his behalf.

Presiding over the conference was Heartland Institute president Joseph Bast. A former socialist turned conservative-libertarian, Bast once wrote a piece for the American Conservative Union Foundation titled “Why I am a Conservative,” in which he described being hired in 1984 at the age of 26 by David Padden, owner of an investment securities firm in Chicago, to start Heartland.

David Padden, a Chicago bond trader, is listed as a founding director in Heartland’s Articles of Incorporation. He has also been a director of libertarian think tank the Cato Institute, the anti-regulation Citizens for a Sound Economy (now known as FreedomWorks), and the Acton Institute, which “integrates Judeo-Christian truths with free market principles.”

Bast’s article on conservatism went on to reminisce about his time as an undergraduate at the University of Chicago, where he majored in economics and joined the libertarian movement.

Numerous news articles about Bast have described him as a graduate in economics from the University of Chicago. But in actuality, Bast did not receive a degree from the school. According to degree auditors The Student Clearinghouse, Bast enrolled in the school from 1976 to 1984 but never obtained his bachelor’s degree. Reached by e-mail, Bast said that he left the University of Chicago in 1984, 11 weeks before graduating, to start Heartland.

Finding new funders

Heartland’s Miller said that less than 5 percent of the institute’s $6 million budget comes from energy companies. Its website states that in 2007, it received 71 percent of its income from foundations, 16 percent from corporations, and 11 percent from individuals.

Heartland, like many nonprofits, does not disclose its funders and funding amounts.

Miller said individuals associated with Heartland had been harassed, so the group will no longer disclose individual donors. Older documents from the Institute show that it has received donations from companies including the Philip Morris Management Corp., Chevron USA, the National Coal Association, the Brown & Williamson Tobacco corporation, Ford Motors, and General Motors.

Also touted were conservative family foundations, including the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Walton Family Foundation, and the Barre Seid Foundation. The Bradley Foundation has donated at least $500,000 to Heartland from 2003-2007, based on data from the Foundation Center, a nonpartisan group that compiles records of nonprofits. The Walton Family Foundation also donated at least $290,000 from 2003-2006, and the Barbara and Barre Seid Foundation donated $176,000 in 2004.

Conservative family foundations have long served as a key source of funding for groups that deny the prevailing global warming science, and they seem to be increasing their largesse as ExxonMobil bows out.

A survey of global warming skeptic groups shows that family foundations have increased their donations steadily from 2004-2006. The Charles G. Koch and the Claude R. Lambe Charitable foundations, run by the Koch Family Foundations, both show increases in donations over the years to global warming skeptics. The foundations are funded through Koch Industries, a $110 billion corporation that works in petroleum, chemicals, fibers and polymers, and commodity and financial trading and services.

In 2004 the Koch Foundation donated about $350,000 to such groups, but in 2006, it donated $5.3 million. Likewise, the Lambe Foundation increased its funding to such groups from $1.4 million in 2004 to $2.6 million in 2006.

The Sarah Scaife Foundation, run by the heirs to the Mellon banking, oil, and industrial fortune, also increased its funding from $3.9 million to skeptic groups in 2004 to $4.3 million in 2006.

The total donations in the three years from 2004-2006 show that the Scaife/Carthage Foundations donated $15.2 million to such groups; the Bradley Foundation has donated $11 million, the Koch Foundation $6.7 million, the Lambe Foundation $6.2 million, and the Templeton Foundation $4.2 million. Together, these amounts from just 2004, 2005, and 2006, far exceed the donations from ExxonMobil over the past decade.

GM pulls out

GM Discontinues Funding Of Climate-Denial Think Tank Heartland Institute | “General Motors has decided to discontinue funding of the Heartland Institute,” Climate One reports. “GM spokesman Dave Barthmuss confirmed the move today.” The Heartland Institute is a crucial node in the fossil-fueled propaganda campaign to deny the threat of manmade climate change. When first asked about its contributions to the anti-science organization, a GM spokesman called the group “careful and considerate,” which led to an outcry from ten thousand GM owners, including drivers of the innovative Chevy Volt.

One in a series of posts about the Heartland Institute’s inner workings, from internal documents acquired by ThinkProgress Green. ThinkProgress is among several publications to have published documents attributed to the Heartland Institute and sent to us from an anonymous and then unknown source. The source later revealed himself. Heartland Institute has issued several press releases claiming that one document (“2012 Climate Strategy”) is fake and asserting other claims regarding the other documents. ThinkProgress has taken down the “2012 Climate Strategy” document as it determines the document’s authenticity.

http://thinkprogress.org/green/issue/

By Josh Silver, CEO

This week, climate blogs including DeSmogBlog and ThinkProgress Green uncovered a leaked documentprecious to public interest advocates: a confidential memo and fundraising plan from the “conservative” Heartland Institute that lists its corporate donors, as well as the group’s strategic plans.

Heartland is one of many so-called “conservative” think tanks that “promote[s] free-market solutions to social and economic problems.” The document exposes what everyone knows, but is rarely proven: that Heartland and other “free-market” think tanks are nothing but lobbying vehicles for the largest corporations and billionaires who own them. These groups were the lead actors in the D.C. dramas that killed consumer protections that could have prevented the banking crisis, the Gulf oil spill, tax breaks for millionaires, and countless other affronts against America’s middle class. They are the secret agents artfully promoting the agendas of Big Insurance, Big Pharma, Big Phone and Cable, and anyone else who ponies up the cash. The leaked documents even admit that Heartland’s funders “want project-specific proposals”

Real conservative Americans should be seriously pissed off about this. Think tanks like Heartland falsely brand themselves as conservative while blindly espousing a free market free for all that history proves — over and over and at extreme cost to society — as untenable: a fig leaf that covers their real goal of destroying any consumer protections that could hurt profitmaking and the consolidation of wealth into the hands of billionaires. Reporters and pundits hear this: they are corporate, not conservative think tanks.

Polls show that conservatives are already outraged at how Big Money buys laws and the politicians who vote for them. Conservatives should be equally outraged that these think tanks and corporate-pawn politicians who do their bidding are co-opting their conservative brand to undermine the public interest. Agreat video from the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) last week shows Tea Partiers and Occupiers agreeing that crony capitalism is the issue that unifies them.

In the big scheme of things, Heartland Institute is a small player, with an annual budget of just $6 million.Heritage Foundation rakes in $75 million a year to shill for corporations; American Enterprise Institute, around $30 million, and the list goes on. What the leaked documents prove is what everyone in Washington knows: most Washington think tanks are a who’s who of the major corporations that own American democracy. And they are the same corporations that are increasingly buying favor at liberal institutions like the NAACP and Sierra Club.

This problem is but one piece of the larger crisis facing America in 2012: the capture of government — and both major parties — by well-heeled special interests. While we would all like a simple fix, the reality is that the solution is more complex. We must advance a range of reforms: from limiting super PACS, campaign spending and contributions to requiring full transparency of all political spending, including think tanks like these. From blocking the “revolving door” of politicians and K Street, to fixing the gerrymandering of congressional districts. From increasing voter participation to fixing antiquated legislative and election rules like the filibuster and the electoral college.

Complex, yes, but a common sense reform agenda is emerging that must be foisted upon our nation’s leaders with the brute political cudgel of pure populism: the same kind that ushered in the greatest political triumphs dating back to the birth of the republic. No, America, our leaders will not fix this problem out of the goodness of their hearts. If we want the republic to survive and thrive, it’s up to us to force them.

This article originally appeared in the Huffington Post.

bast author of memo? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shawn-lawrence-otto/why-is-heartland-institut_b_1311208.html

==

DOI scientist spreads disinfo:

According to one of the documents that came out in last week's scandal, the Heartland Institute plans to pay a federal scientist for his contributions to an annual climate-denial report. The proposed 2012 budget for the institute is one of the more interesting things to come out of the Heartland documents that were passed around the internet, as it includes a $1,000-per-month payment to a Department of Interior employee.

Posted on DeSmogBlog last week, the budget includes a monthly stipend for Indur Goklany, who serves as a senior adviser in the office of policy analysis at the Department of Interior. The document indicates that the money is compensation for authoring a chapter on "economics and policy" for the "Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change," an annual paper that Heartland and other climate deniers release in response to the reports from the actual, United Nations-sanctioned scientific panel known as the IPCC.

Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), the ranking member of the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, on Wednesday requested a Natural Resources Committee hearing to investigate whether this payment violates ethics rules at the DOI. Greenpeace also requested an investigation into this in a letter sent to DOI Secretary Ken Salazar on Tuesday. In it, the group notes that the ethics guidelines for federal employees state that they "generally may not receive pay for teaching, speaking and writing that relates to [their] official duties."

The Heartland funding wouldn't be the first time Goklany has worked with free-market think-tanks. According to his website, Goklany has also authored three books published by the Cato Institute and has written for the Reason Foundation and the Fraser Institute, three libertarian think-tanks.

Adam Fetcher, a spokesman for DOI, told Mother Jones that the department is reviewing the matter.

The Heartland Institute, the libertarian thinktank whose project to undermine science lessons for schoolchildren was exposed this week, faces new scrutiny of its finances – including its donors and tax status.

The Guardian has learned of a whistleblower complaint to the Internal Revenue Service about Heartland's 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status.

There was also a call from a group of climate scientists who have personally been on the receiving end of attacks from Heartland and bloggers funded by the thinktank, and whose email was posted online after a notorious 2009 hack, for Heartland to "recognise how its attacks on science and scientists have poisoned the debate about climate change policy," in a letter made available exclusively to the Guardian.

The unauthorised release of internal documents indicated Heartland had received $14m over several years from a single anonymous donor as well as tobacco and liquor companies and corporations pledged to social responsibility, including the General Motors Foundation.

The release of the donors' list led a number of environmental organisations to demand GM, which gave $30,000, and Microsoft, which gave $59,908 in free software, to sever their ties with a thinktank that has a core mission of discrediting climate science.

An online petition on Friday criticised GM for taking the auto industry bailout and using taxpayer funds to a thinktank spreading what they say is climate misinformation. GM has admitted funding Heartland, pointing out that the money was for its work on health issues, not climate change.

"While General Motors has a mixed record on global warming, lately they've been doing all the right things, like investing heavily in the electric Chevy Volt. At the same time, they've been kept afloat by American taxpayers through a massive bailout. That means our tax dollars are ending up in the hands of the Heartland Institute," the petition said.

Others are focusing on Heartland's support from the tobacco industry as well as major health and pharmaceutical companies for a thinktank which has opposed smoking bans and healthcare reform.

John Mashey, a retired computer scientist and Silicon Valley executive, said he filed a complaint to the IRS this week that said Heartland's public relations and lobbying efforts violated its non-profit status.

Mashey said he sent off his audit, the product of three months' research, just a few hours before the unauthorised release of the Heartland documents.

Mashey said in a telephone interview that the complaint looked at the activities of Heartland and two other organisations that have been prominent in misinforming the public about climate change, the Science and Environmental Policy Project, run by Fred Singer, and the Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, run by Craig Idso. Both men were funded by Heartland, with Idso receiving $11,600 per month and Singer $5,500 a month, according to the 2012 budget.

Heartland is also funding contrarians in Canada and other countries, the documents show.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/17/heartland-institute-fresh-scrutiny-tax

DENIERGATE COMPANIES

Company    Ticker Symbol    2010-2011 Total    Project Code

Altria Client Services Inc.    MO    $90,000    BTN

Amgen, USA    AMGN    $25,000    HCN

Anheuser-Busch Companies Inc.    BUD    $5,000    ITTN

AT&T    T    $100,000    ITTN

BB&T    BBT    $16,105    ECN

Comcast Corporation    CMCSA    $35,000    ITTN

Diageo    DEO    $10,000    GO

Eli Lilly & Company    LLY    $25,000    HCN

General Motors Foundation    GM    $30,000    SRN

GlaxoSmithKline    GSK    $50,000    HCN

KCI    KCI    $115,000    FIRE

LKQ Corporation    LKQX    $24,500    FIRE

Microsoft Corporation    MSFT    $59,908    ITTN

Nucor Corporation    NUE    $502,000    ECN

PepsiCo, Inc.    PEP    $5,000    BTN

Pfizer    PFE    $130,000    HCN

Reynolds American Inc.    RAI    $110,000    FIRE

Time Warner Cable    TWC    $20,000    ITTN

XL Group    XL    $35,000    FIRE

Projects:

BTN=Budget & Tax News; ECN=Environment & Climate News; FIRE=Finance Insurance and Real Estate ; GO=General Operating; HCN=Health Care News; ITTN=Information Technology & Telecom News; SRN=School Reform News.

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/02/17/428111/exposed-the-19-public-corporations-funding-the-climate-denier-think-tank-heartland-institute/

huffpo

According to documents leaked and posted to DeSmogBlog, the Heartland Institute has budgeted $612,000 for a Wisconsin campaign called Operation Angry Badger. The campaign consists of an effort to inform voters of the success of Walker's budget law, passed on June 26, that included a reduction in the collective bargaining rights of workers in public employee unions. The budget sparked a labor-led protest movement that has consumed Wisconsin politics over the past year.

Document dump: http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute-exposed-internal-documents-unmask-heart-climate-denial-machine

Climate Denial Bombshell

Posted: 02/15/2012 9:18 am

A major event in the U.S. political battle over climate change happened this week with the unauthorized release of secret internal documents that reveal the finances and truly Machiavellian strategy of the Heartland Institute, a leading oil-industry-funded disinformation machine designed to spread propaganda and cast doubt on the settled science of anthropogenic global warming.

Tuesday morning, an anonymous person set up a Gmail account and used it to send incriminating internal strategy and budget documents to the email inboxes of bloggers who write about science denialism and climate change, then immediately cancelled the gmail account. The documents appear to be genuine and have been checked against other sources, which confirm their authenticity. If true, they show a pattern of breathtaking mendacity.

Take, for instance, the Heartland Institute's strategy of promoting climate science disinformation and propaganda in America's K-12 science classes, among the children who will be most impacted by it. The group is "pursuing a proposal from Dr. David Wojick to produce a global warming curriculum for K-12 schools." According to the Heartland Institute, 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. Fair enough, except when you read on.

    His effort will focus on providing 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.

There, in black and white in the group's strategy document, is the truly nefarious, unAmerican, bald-faced goal: to dissuade American science teachers from teaching science. The group plans to pay Wojick $100,000 do develop a 20-module curriculum of obfuscation.

In an American science education crisis, where American students are ranking far down in international science rankings, this strategy should be inviting calls from congress for an investigation. Who is this Heartland Institute, who are their funders, what schools are adopting this curricula, and who is the mysterious "Anonymous donor" who is funding much of the miseducation of America's students? What other misinformation for political ends is being pushed into American science classrooms?

PISA rankings

But the disinformation being played on the American people doesn't stop there. Heartland brags about how it has worked

    to undermine the official United Nation's IPCC reports and paid a team of writers $388,000 in 2011 to work on a series of editions of Climate Change Reconsidered.

This statement alone is enough to cast withering scientific doubt on anything and everything the Heartland Institute has ever produced. At the time, the Heartland Institute said of its Reconsidered report, "This isn't 'denial,' it's just common sense."

Any organization whose stated goal is not the discovery or communication of knowledge, but the political goal to "undermine" official reports is by definition not doing anything remotely like either science or common sense, but is instead using the language of science to work toward a predetermined ideological objective.

In other words, rhetoric. Any reporter who now quotes or sources from a Heartland Institute report should realize that they are, by the Heartland Institute's own admission, printing ideologically-driven propaganda, not measurement-driven knowledge.

If you thought that was bad enough, consider the Heartland Institute's true objective, as evidenced by their "increased climate project fundraising" goals.

Other contributions will be pursued for this work, especially from corporations whose interests are threatened by climate policies.

And this is where it is laid bare. In my book Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America, I show why science is never partisan, but science is always political. That is because whenever it creates new knowledge, that knowledge either confirms or challenges somebody's vested interests -- and those vested interests fight back.

In 1633, the seat of world political and economic power was the Vatican, and the Roman Catholic Church went to absurd lengths to indict the scientist Galileo and cast doubt on his simple observations:

1. The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and

immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and

formally heretical; because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures.

2. The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world, nor

immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal action, is also

absurd, philosophically false, and, theologically considered, at least

erroneous in faith.

Today, the seat of world political and economic power is the U.S. energy industry. Koch Industries, for example, is the second largest private held company in America, and a major donor to the Heartland Institute. With a market cap of $407 billion, Exxon-Mobil is the world's most valuable company, period.

It's no wonder energy companies find the simple, repeatable measurements of climate scientists threatening. But now we see just how nefarious are the lengths of disinformation to which some of them will go.

BEST global temperatures

Anyone who is on the fence about whether climate change is really happening should consider the breathtaking, unAmerican manipulation of their minds and the minds of their children that makes up the core strategy of one of America's leading voices putting out supposedly "scientific" reports that question climate change.

The Heartland Institute has shown it has no credibility -- but worse, it has no heart.

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.

Other stories on the Heartland documents

Deep Climate

Greg Laden

Brad Johnson

Richard Littlemore

John Mashey

Joe Romm

Peter Sinclair

Michael Tobis

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shawn-lawrence-otto/heartland-institute-leaked-documents_b_1278059.html?view=print&comm_ref=false

HEARTLAND  chicago

founded 84 PMorris $

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

SW:  according to the Institute's web site, is a nonprofit organization whose mission is "to discover and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems".[1] The Institute campaigns in support of:

   * "Common-sense environmentalism", such as opposition to the the Kyoto Protocol aimed at countering global warming COAL

   * Genetically engineered crops and products;

   * The privatization of public services;

   * The introduction of school vouchers;

   * The deregulation of health care insurance;

and against:

   * What it refers to as "junk science" (science that that could indicate a need for regulation);

   * Tobacco control measures such as tobacco tax increases (the Institute denies the health effects of second-hand smoke);

Disputing global warming

In March 2008 the Heartland Institute hosted what was referred to as The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change.[31]

A similar conference was held in March 2009 in New York.[32][33]

The Third International Conference on Climate Change was held in Washington, DC on June 2, 2009 at the Washington Court Hotel, to "call attention to widespread dissent to the asserted 'consensus' on various aspects of climate change and global warming," according to Heartland's announcement of the event. "The conference's theme will be Climate Change: Scientific Debate and Economic Analysis. The theme reflects the fact that the scientific debate is not over and that economic analysis is more important than ever, now that legislation is being seriously considered. The real science and economics of climate change support the view that global warming is not a crisis and that immediate action to reduce emissions is not necessary. This is, in fact, the emerging consensus view of scientists outside the IPCC and most economists outside environmental advocacy groups," Heartland's website states. [34]

The Heartland Institute's Environmental "expert," James Taylor, is a lawyer based in Florida. Despite presenting a veneer of scientific expertise in their Environmental advocacy, the Heartland lacks any scientists trained to understand climate issues.

  LIST: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute/Global_warming_experts INCLUDESD AVERY, # Sallie Baliunas, Astrophysicist and Senior Scientist, George C. Marshall Institute

Timothy Ball, Environmental Consultant and Former Climatology Professor, University of Winnipeg

Robert Balling, Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University...# David Legates, Climatologist and Director, Delaware Environmental Observing System

Jay Lehr, Science Director, The Heartland Institute

Marlo Lewis, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute

Henry Linden, Professor of Energy and Power Engineering and Management, Illinois Institute of Technology

Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Craig Loehle, Principal Scientist, National Council for Air and Stream Improvement

Bjorn Lomborg, Director, Copenhagen Consensus Centre

Water policy

Heartland opposes the Great Lakes Water Resources Compact, which was signed into affect in December of 2005 by the governors of eight states that border the great lakes, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and New York, and the premiers of the Canadian provinces of Quebec and Ontario. As of 2008, the compact was ratified by all of the eight state legislatures. The compact was proposed in light of the unprecedented low levels of water in the lakes, which are now at the bottom end of the historical fluctuation range of 4-6 feet. In order to mitigate diminishing water levels, The compact will limit the consumption of water from the Great Lakes to areas within these eight states, or to areas outside of the boundary only by petition subject to strict regulation. [35] This new regulation also stemmed from proposals to ship water from the Great Lakes to other states like Arizona, or even out of the country into Asian water markets. [36]

In a research and commentary report released in March of 2007, the Heartland Institute criticized the compact, claiming water should be regulated through the market rather than through the government. [37] In this report, Heartland, as is typical of a free market think tank, contends that water is a commodity just like other resources, and should thus be regulated through market mechanisms. The report cites Terry Anderson, Director of the Property and Environment Research Center, arguing that "water rights should be allocated and traded in the marketplace, even if that means shipping water to Asia at the right price. It's no different than shipping out cars or iron ore." [37]

Funding

In its 20075 annual return to the Internal Revenue Service, Heartland disclosed its 2007 annual revenue as being $5.2 million while its total expenses were $5.8 million. The deficit of $648,458 ate through the group's start of year reserves of $535,113. By the end of 2007, Heartland was in the red to the tune of $113,345.[3] In its 2008 annual report to supporters, Heartland outlines that corporate sponsorships start out at $10,000, with the next rung up being "silver" sponsors which contribute $25,000, "gold" sponsors donating $50,000 and "platinum" sponsors kicking in $100,000.[4]

Secrecy on funding sources

YET

   * Armstrong Foundation

   * Barre Seid Foundation

   * Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation

   * Jaquelin Hume Foundation

   * Charlotte and Walter Kohler Charitable Trust

   * Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation

   * Hickory Foundation

   * JM Foundation

   * John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.

   * Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation

   * Rodney Fund

   * Roe Foundation

   * Scaife Foundations (Sarah Mellon Scaife, Carthage)

   * Walton Family Foundation

wiki

The Heartland Institute is a libertarian[2][3][4] American public policy think tank based in Chicago, Illinois which advocates free market policies. The Institute is designated as a 501(c)(3)non-profit by the Internal Revenue Service and advised by a 15 member board of directors, which meets quarterly. As of 2008, it has a full-time staff of 30, including editors and senior fellows.[2] The Institute was founded in 1984 and conducts research and advocacy work on issues including government spending, taxation, healthcare, tobacco policy, global warming, information technology and free-market environmentalism.

In the 1990s, the group worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question the science linking secondhand smoke to health risks, and to lobby against government public health reforms.[5][6][7] More recently, the Institute has focused on questioning the scientific consensus on climate change, and has sponsored meetings of climate change skeptics.[8]

Contents

    1 History and leadership

    2 Positions

        2.1 Global warming

        2.2 Smoking

    3 Publications

    4 Funding

    5 See also

    6 References

    7 External links

History and leadership

In its early years, the Heartland Institute focused on policies relevant to the Midwestern United States. Since 1993 it has focused on reaching elected officials and opinion leaders in all 50 states. In addition to research, the Heartland Institute features an Internet application called PolicyBot which serves as a clearinghouse for research from other conservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation, the American Legislative Exchange Council, and the libertarian Cato Institute. The Institute's president and CEO is Joseph L. Bast.

Positions

Global warming

The Heartland Institute questions the scientific consensus on climate change, arguing that global warming is not occurring and, further, that warming would be beneficial if it did occur.[9] The institute is a member organization of the Cooler Heads Coalition, which describes itself as "an informal and ad-hoc group focused on dispelling the myths of global warming."[10] In Merchants of Doubt, Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway wrote that the Heartland Institute was known "for its persistent questioning of climate science, for its promotion of 'experts' who have done little, if any, peer-reviewed climate research, and for its sponsorship of a conference in New York City in 2008 alleging that the scientific community's work on global warming is a fake."[7]

In 2008, 2009, and 2010, the Heartland Institute sponsored international conferences bringing hundreds of global warming skeptics to New York City. Speakers included Richard Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at MIT; Roy Spencer, a former NASA scientist; S. Fred Singer, who was founding dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at the University of Miami and founding director of the National Weather Satellite Service; Harrison Schmitt, a former NASA astronaut and Apollo 17 moonwalker; and John Theon, a former NASA administrator. Participants criticized the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore.[11][6] The BBC reported that the heavily politicized nature of the Heartland conferences led some "moderate" climate skeptics to avoid them.[8]

In 2008 a bibliography written by Dennis Avery was posted on Heartland’s Web site, titled "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares,”[12][13] In late April 2008, Heartland reported that the web site DeSmogBlog had "targeted The Heartland Institute in late April 2008, and in particular two lists posted on Heartland’s Web site of scientists whose published work contradicts some of the main tenets of global warming alarmism." [13] The Sydney Morning Herald reported that the work of Jim Salinger, chief scientist at New Zealand's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, was "misrepresented" as part of a "denial campaign".[14]

In response to criticism, the Heartland Institute changed the title of the list to “500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares.” [13] Heartland did not remove any of the scientists' names from the list.[13][14] Dennis Avery explained, "Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptic"..."but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see.”[13] Heartland’s president, Joseph Bast, wrote “They have no right -- legally or ethically -- to demand that their names be removed from a bibliography composed by researchers with whom they disagree. Their names probably appear in hundreds or thousands of bibliographies accompanying other articles or in books with which they disagree. Do they plan to sue hundreds or thousands of their colleagues? The proper response is to engage in scholarly debate, not demand imperiously that the other side redact its publications.”[13]

Smoking

In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with Philip Morris to question the link between secondhand smoke and health risks.[6][15] Philip Morris used Heartland to distribute tobacco-industry material, and arranged for the Heartland Institute to publish "policy studies" which summarized Philip Morris reports.[15][16] The Heartland Institute also undertook a variety of other activities on behalf of Philip Morris, including meeting with legislators, holding "off-the-record" briefings, and producing op-eds, radio interviews, and letters.[15][17] In 1994, at the request of Philip Morris, the Heartland Institute met with Republican Congressmen to encourage them to oppose increases in the federal excise tax. Heartland reported back to Philip Morris that the Congressmen were "strongly in our camp", and planned further meetings with other legislators.[18]

Publications

The Heartland Institute publishes five monthly public policy newspapers aimed at state legislators. These include: Budget and Tax News, which advocates lower taxes and balanced budgets for states and the federal government; School Reform News, which calls for greater competition and school choice; Environment & Climate News, which focuses on "market-based environmental protection"; Health Care News, devoted to consumer-driven health care reform and edited by Ben Domenech; and Infotech and Telecom News, which covers the technology and telecommunications industries from a free market perspective. The five monthly publications have a circulation total of nearly 200,000.[19]

Funding

According to its brochures, the Heartland Institute receives money from approximately 1,600 individuals and organizations, and no single corporate entity donates more than 5% of the operating budget.[20] Heartland states that it does not accept government funds and does not conduct contract research for special-interest groups.[21]

MediaTransparency reported that the Heartland Institute received funding from politically conservative foundations such as the Castle Rock Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.[22][dead link]

Oil and gas companies have contributed to the Heartland Institute, including over $600,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005.[23] Greenpeace reported that the Heartland Institute received almost $800,000 from ExxonMobil.[14] By 2008, ExxonMobil had stopped funding to Heartland.[dubious – discuss] Joseph Bast, president of the Heartland Institute, argued that ExxonMobil was simply distancing itself from Heartland out of concern for its public image.[23]

The Heartland Institute has also received funding and support from the tobacco company Philip Morris.[15] The Independent reported that Heartland's receipt of donations from Exxon and Philip Morris indicates a "direct link"..."between anti-global warming sceptics funded by the oil industry and the opponents of the scientific evidence showing that passive smoking can damage people's health."[6]

As of 2006, the Walton Family Foundation (run by the family which founded Wal-Mart) had contributed approximately $300,000 to the Heartland Institute. The Heartland Institute published an op-ed in the Louisville Courier-Journal defending Wal-Mart against criticism over its treatment of workers. The Walton Family Foundation donations were not disclosed in the op-ed, and the editor of the Courier-Journal stated that he was unaware of the connection and would probably not have published the op-ed had he known of it.[24] The St. Petersburg Times described the Heartland Institute as "particularly energetic defending Wal-Mart."[24] Heartland has stated that its authors were not "paid to defend Wal-Mart" and did not receive funding from the corporation; it did not disclose the $300,000+ received from the Walton Family Foundation.[24]

See also

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

References

    ^ IRS Form 990 (2006), The Heartland Institute

    ^ a b About Us page on Heartland Institute web page. The page notes "Dr. Milton Friedman called Heartland 'a highly effective libertarian institute.'"

    ^ Alasdair Scott Roberts, Blacked out: government secrecy in the information age, Cambridge University Press,p. 253, 2006 ISBN 0521858704, 9780521858700

    ^ It also has been described as right-wing. See, for example:

        Pilkington, Ed (September 14, 2009). "Anti-Obama protesters march in Washington". Irish Times. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/0914/1224254474903.html. Retrieved September 3, 2010. "They include right-wing think tanks such as the Heartland Institute..."

        Connor, Steve (March 3, 2008). "Tobacco and oil pay for climate conference". The Independent. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/tobacco-and-oil-pay-for-climate-conference-790474.html. Retrieved September 2, 2010. "The first international conference designed to question the scientific consensus on climate change is being sponsored by a right-wing American think-tank which receives money from the oil industry."

        Harrabin, Roger (May 21, 2010). "Climate sceptics rally to expose 'myth'". BBC. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8694544.stm. Retrieved September 3, 2010. "At the world's biggest gathering of climate change sceptics, organised by the right-wing Heartland Institute..."

        Harte, Julia (December 16, 2009). "Shooting the Messenger". Philadelphia City Paper. http://citypaper.net/articles/2009/12/17/pennsylvania-climate-change-action-plan. Retrieved September 5, 2010. "Jay Lehr, science director at the right-wing Heartland Institute, concurs."

    ^ Tesler, L. E.; Malone, R. E. (2010). ""Our Reach Is Wide by Any Corporate Standard": How the Tobacco Industry Helped Defeat the Clinton Health Plan and Why It Matters Now". American Journal of Public Health 100 (7): 1174–1188. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2009.179150. "At Philip Morris's request, for example, Heartland Institute staff met with two Republican congressmen "to encourage opposition to the Clinton plan and FET [Federal Excise Tax] hikes."".

    ^ a b c d Connor, Steve (March 3, 2008). "Tobacco and oil pay for climate conference". The Independent. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/tobacco-and-oil-pay-for-climate-conference-790474.html. Retrieved September 2, 2010.

    ^ a b Oreskes, Naomi; Erik M. Conway (2010). Merchants of Doubt. Bloomsbury Press. ISBN 978-1-59691-610-4. pp. 233–234

    ^ a b Harrabin, Roger (May 21, 2010). "Climate sceptics rally to expose 'myth'". BBC. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8694544.stm. Retrieved September 3, 2010.

    ^ "Instant Expert Guide: Global Warming" (PDF). Heartland Institute. Archived from the original on December 1, 2006. http://web.archive.org/web/20061201133847/http://www.heartland.org/pdf/ieguide.pdf. Retrieved 4 March 2008.

    ^ "About GlobalWarming.org". Cooler Heads Coalition. http://www.globalwarming.org/about. Retrieved 2008-08-22.

    ^ Revkin, Andrew (March 4, 2008). "Cool View of Science at Meeting on Warming". New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/science/earth/04climate.html. Retrieved March 4, 2008.

    ^ 500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares, by Dennis T. Avery. From the Heartland Institute website; published September 14, 2007, accessed June 20, 2008.

    ^ a b c d e f Heartland Institute (May 5, 2008). "Controversy Arises Over Lists of Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares". Press release. http://heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=23207. Retrieved September 3, 2010.

    ^ a b c McKnight, David (August 2, 2008). "The climate change smokescreen". Sydney Morning Herald. http://www.smh.com.au/news/global-warming/the-climate-change-smokescreen/2008/08/01/1217097533885.html. Retrieved December 28, 2009.

    ^ a b c d Oreskes, Naomi; Erik M. Conway (2010). Merchants of Doubt. Bloomsbury Press. ISBN 978-1-59691-610-4.[page needed]

    ^ "Roy Marden to Thomas Borelli et al." (PDF). Philip Morris Documents Archive. April 22, 1997. http://www.pmdocs.com/PDF/2075574226D_4227_0.PDF.

    ^ Roy Marden (October 26, 1999). "Opposition to Fedsuit" (PDF). Philip Morris Documents Archive. http://www.pmdocs.com/PDF/2077575920A_5921_0.PDF.

    ^ "FET Update" (PDF). Philip Morris Documents Archive. January 28, 1994. http://www.pmdocs.com/PDF/2046554465_4467_0.PDF.

    ^ "Staff: Joseph Bast". Heartland Institute. http://www.heartland.org/about/profileresults.html?profile=6110DE2CC2614EF79267933376E6B380&directory=0490F571009CFDBBCAA4E62B8A3EBAE2. Retrieved 2009-12-10.

    ^ http://www.heartland.org/FAQArticle.cfm?faqId=7

    ^ Bast, Joseph (April 13, 2007). "Welcome to The Heartland Institute!". Heartlander. The Heartland Institute. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=10582.

    ^ "Heartland Institute Funding". MediaTransparency. http://www.mediatransparency.com/recipientgrants.php?recipientID=152. Retrieved June 20, 2008.

    ^ a b Revkin, Andrew (March 8, 2009). "Skeptics Dispute Climate Worries and Each Other". New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/science/earth/09climate.html. Retrieved September 2, 2010.

    ^ a b c Adair, Bill (September 10, 2006). "Corporate spin can come in disguise". St. Petersburg Times. http://www.sptimes.com/2006/09/10/Worldandnation/Corporate_spin_can_co.shtml. Retrieved September 3, 2010.

External links

    Heartland's official website

    Sourcewatch - More detailed funding information

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute"

Categories: Political and economic think tanks in the United States | Libertarian think tanks | Libertarian organizations based in the United States | Organizations of environmentalism skeptics and critics | Non-profit organizations based in Chicago, Illinois

-

"ArticGate" - When is a Mistake a Lie?

What did Harrison Schmitt Know? And When?

In the ongoing controversy over whether former astronaut and New Mexico Senator Harrison Schmitt intentionally misled NASA with his 2009 white paper on climate change, we come to the age old questions: What did Schmitt know? And when did he know it?

Schmitt says in that paper that "Artic (sic) sea ice has returned to 1989 levels of coverage." When Dr. Mark Boslough, a physicist and computational modeler at Sandia National Laboratories brought to Schmitt's attention that this was incorrect, Schmitt failed to correct it. Well, not everyone likes to admit making a mistake.

But was it a mistake? Joseph Bast, President of the tobacco and oil-stained Heartland Institute, of which Schmitt is a Director, wrote in a snarling defence of his boss that, "In fact, National Snow and Ice Data Center records show conclusively that in April 2009, Arctic sea ice extent had indeed returned to and surpassed 1989 levels." And you can see from the little graph at the left that, for a week or so in April and May, that's correct.

But Schmitt submitted his paper in September, and a colleague who has seen an electronic copy of that document reports that it was last edited on August 29, 2009. And here is a comparison of Arctic sea ice in 1989 and 2009 on that day.

So, we know the information on sea ice extent was wrong on the day Schmitt pushed the button. We know that the error was called to his attention and that he failed to correct it. We know that when that factual abdication was brought to public attention, Joe Bast, the president of Schmitt's smokey organization jumped to his defence and we know that Jim Lakely, the communicat­ions director for Heartland, has spent a fair amount of time dissembling further on the Huffington Post story on this issue written by Dr. Peter Gleick.

http://environmental-sustainability.soup.io/tag/Heartland%20Institute

dirty dozen

No. 7: The Heartland Institute Meet the 12 loudest members of the chorus claiming that global warming is a joke and that CO2 emissions are actually good for you.

http://motherjones.com/environment/2009/12/dirty-dozen-climate-change-denial-06-heartland-institute

The Heartland Institute has a long history of shilling for corporate lepers. Since 1993, it has received $190,000 from Philip Morris USA and maintains a smokers' rights section on its website called "The Smoker's Lounge." Its global warming section is more active. It features a handy list of denial talking points ("Scores of peer-reviewed studies contradict global warming alarmism") and links to full-page ads Heartland has run in the Washington Post decrying the media for hyping "false claims of impending 'planetary emergencies.'"

Heartland, which has received $670,000 from ExxonMobil and its foundations since 1998, views itself as a bulwark against a leftist domino effect. "Fighting global warming extremism is essential," its website says, "if we are to stop a resurgence of radical environmentalism and left liberalism on a wide range of other public policy issues."

In June, the Heartland Institute held its Third International Conference on Climate Change in Washington, DC, "to expose Congressional staff and journalists to leading scientists" such as Craig Idso, Lord Christopher Monckton, and Anthony Watts. The conference was cosponsored by Americans for Prosperity, the Science and Public Policy Institute, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which has received more than $2 million from ExxonMobil and its foundations since 1998. In the conference's concluding address, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) complained that his opponents had called him "Dumb, crazy man, science abuser, Holocaust denier, villain of the month, hate-filled, warmonger, Neanderthal, Genghis Khan, and Attila the Hun." But, he added, "I've got 20 kids and grandkids, and they think it's great."

Heartland has jumped on Climategate with a vengeance. The stolen emails at the center of the storm "reveal a conspiracy to falsify the actual temperature record and silence so-called 'skeptics,'" it writes on its website. "Anyone who continues to cite the IPCC as representing the 'consensus' on global warming is wrong. The IPCC has been totally discredited."

Despite Heartland's corn-fed name, it also funds foreign denial groups. Its 2007 tax filing lists $120,000 in donations to four groups in Canada and New Zealand that oppose signing a new climate agreement in Copenhagen. In October, one recipient, Canada's Frontier Center for Public Policy, sponsored an event at the Calgary Petroleum club called "Apocalypse Cancelled," where Monckton will discuss "the non-problem of anthropogenic 'global warming.'"

Heartland stopped disclosing its donors in 2004 after being "punished for doing so" by the liberal media, explains Heartland president and CEO Joseph Bast. He insists that 95 percent of Heartland's funding now comes from "non-energy and non-tobacco sources" and that internal policies insulate staff from the influence of donors: "Try saying this very slowly, several times and out loud: 'They aren't in this for the money.'" Heartland says that it stopped taking money from Exxon in 2006.

Bast declined to reveal the recipients of Heartland's $182,000 in overseas grants in 2008, and the group's tax filing doesn't name them. (The tax code requires foundations to disclose any donations greater than $5,000.) He would only say that Copenhagen negotiations "make our work on climate change especially timely and relevant, but influencing those negotiations is not our purpose."

By Josh Harkinson

Lee Fang 2.17.2012

President Obama’s health reform law forced health insurance companies to largely stop canceling medical coverage to patients after being diagnosed with a disease. Rescissions, as they are known, allowed insurers to cancel individual market policies by finding spelling errors or minor mistakes in coverage applications as an excuse to halt treatment for patients.

An investigation found five health insurance companies operating in California had rescinded care for sick patients in over 20,000 instances. A congressional hearing following the study revealed cases in which people died after having vital health coverage rescinded. One of the health care companies that engaged in this practice, including in California, is UnitedHealth’s Golden Rule Insurance company.

Recently leaked document show that Golden Rule actually funneled large donations to a nonprofit “think tank” that fought aggressively to defend the right of insurance companies to engage in rescissions. The leaked documents, all relating to the fundraising operation of the Heartland Institute, have largely been covered by the media only through the lens of the group’s dedication to anti-climate science propaganda. But given the Heartland Institute’s lobbying against certain aspects of health reform, the Golden Rule donations are just as important.

Golden Rule gave $40,030 to the Heartland Institute in 2010, followed by a $250,000 donation last year and another $250,000 pledged for this year, according to the documents. The money is earmarked for the Heartland Institute’s health care policy program.

During this time period, the Heartland Institute published several documents railing against “Obamacare,” citing the new regulations against rescissions as part of the problem. The Heartland Institute’s Peter Ferrara sides with insurers in a major report and says the practice of rescinding care is “only fair,” given how patients lie on applications. In addition to promoting ludicrous conspiracy theories like the “death panel” charge, the Heartland Institute also published a newsletter with a pieces that derided the crackdown on rescissions. One newsletter downplayed worry about rescissions as “scare stories,” while noting that such incidents “rarely occur.”

The insurers fought hard against the health reform regulation curbing rescissions. The same California investigation found that rescinding care saved the companies $300 million over a five year period. But lobbying isn’t always as simple as hiring a K Street firm. Often, corporations will defend heinous business practices from oversight by paying a third party or nonprofit to make their case for them.

  ===

defense of leaked docs called rathergate forgery http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2012/02/17/fraudulent-attack-on-heartland-institute-exposes-alarmist-desperation/