The Heartland Institute is Fighting Mad

Written by Alan Caruba, Warning Signs.

Peter Gleick - World Economic Forum Annual Mee...

Peter Gleick - (Photo credit: World Economic Forum)

It’s a pleasant fiction that think tanks are places where scholars spend time in dusty libraries. They are places of great intellectual ferment, but one hardly thinks of them of places were battles rage with infiltrators and propagandists, but The Heartland Institute, a 28-year-old national non-profit organization, is doing that right now.

Having been victimized by a leading advocate of global warming and other environmental inventions, Dr. Peter H. Gleick, who misrepresented himself as a member of its board in order to secure confidential information about Heartland’s donors and then took it a step further by creating a phony “memo” misrepresenting its mission has led Heartland to consider legal proceedings against him.

On April 1, I wrote about “Fakegate”, the name Heartland has applied to L’Affair Gleick.

“One leading voice among the global warming advocates was Dr. Peter H. Gleick whose work in the field of hydroclimatology catapulted him into the top ranks of the scientific community. In 2003 he was awarded a MacArthur Fellowship and in 2006 he was elected to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. In 2011 he led a new task force on “scientific ethics and integrity” for the American Geophysical Union.

On February 16, 2012 he resigned from the task force citing “personal, private reasons” but the reasons would become very public. On February 20, 2012, Dr. Gleick admitted to having fraudulently obtained documents of a board meeting of The Heartland Institute “under someone else’s name” for the purpose of making known its donors.

Dr. Gleick had also allegedly forged a two-page “strategy memo” purporting that the Institute was engaged in a variety of efforts to fraudulently undermine the claims of global warming scientists. The Institute did not have to, nor ever did engage, in any such efforts. The truth about the global warming claims was sufficient to undermine them.”

One might think the exposure of Dr. Gleick’s effort to slander Heartland would end there, but Heartland understands that it has taken decades of effort to undo the damage done by the global warming hoax and the necessity to take off the gloves in combating the fascist tactics of environmentalists.

Earlier this month, when Oxford University offered Dr. Gleick a prestigious platform to lecture on April 24—despite his confession of improper, unethical and illegal behavior. Heartland called on Oxford to deny him this honor. Oxford declined.

The environmental propaganda machine has been in full throes to “spin” Dr. Gleick’s misdeeds and, most recently, when a group called Forecast the Facts engaged in the tactics of misdirection and deception so common to the Left, Heartland fought back.

As Anthony Watts, a meteorologist and editor of Watts Up With That, noted on April 16th “The Center for American Progress aka Think Progress, a front organization for all things left and ‘progressive’…let it slip (whether by design or accident we don’t know) that they are behind this ‘Forecast the Facts’ outfit.” The Center has a $30 million+ annual budget.

“We always wondered,” said Watts, “who was funding (a) “hate campaign against a local television meteorologist” they deemed a “denier” of the global warming hoax.” Typically, Forecast the Facts attributed perfectly natural weather events, tornadoes, to global warming or climate change. They claimed that the states affected were “dominated by anti-government, anti-science ideologues.”

Heartland has identified Forecast the Facts as “a front group created by the same individuals responsible for politicizing the science and polarizing the debate over climate change”, noting further that the group “has no scientists on staff, no history of participating in the climate change debate, and no credibility.”

“Forecast the Facts is promoting the results of a petition that is fraudulent, based on false claims contained in a forged memo. It is grossly misrepresenting The Heartland Institute’s position on climate change.”

With elegant irony, one of the earliest advocates of global warming, James Lovelock, the creator of the Gaia (Earth Goddess) hypothesis, has just come forth to admit he was completely wrong and that he and others who spread fear and panic over global warming were alarmists. In his words, "The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books - mine included - because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened,"

On May 21-23, Heartland will sponsor the Seventh International Conference on Climate Change in Chicago. As had previous conferences, it will field an impressive group of scientists and others who have braved the kind of slander heaped on Heartland by Green organizations and groups whose purpose is to mislead the public regarding the science of climate change.

It is refreshing to see how Heartland has declared war on those who have sought to damage its reputation and to deter donors from supporting it, and is fighting back in a vigorous fashion.

Source

Comments  

 
klem
# klem 04-25-2012 18:11
ThinkProgress has done alot of damage to science in general and the environmental movement as well. I don't think that was their intention but that's how it has turned out. Go get 'em Heartland.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Laughing at your site
# Laughing at your site 04-27-2012 04:11
I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last 20 years arguing the opposite."

Dr. David Sugden. Professor of Geography, University of Edinburgh

I have NO doubts ..the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there."

Dr. Gregory Cutter, Professor, Department of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Old Dominion University



I don't believe any of my work can be used to support any of the statements listed in the article."

Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford



Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!!"

Dr. Svante Bjorck, Geo Biosphere Science Centre, Lund University


I'm outraged that they've included me as an "author" of this report. I do not share the views expressed in the summary."

Dr. John Clague, Shrum Research Professor, Department of Earth Sciences, Simon Fraser University

www.desmogblog.com/500-scientists-with-documented-doubts-about-the-heartland-institute
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Robert
# Robert 04-27-2012 06:23
Ah so the site that is engaged purely in propaganda and who refuse to remove their slander against the Heartland Institute even after Gleick confessed and established that they were lying is your source.

And you're laughing at us? You alarmists truly are hopeless.

Please tell all of us why Heartland should remove their names per their request when DeSmog refuses to remove their slanderous remarks regarding Heartland per their request? Other than the fact that your sort can't take it when it is dished out back at you.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Laughing at your site
# Laughing at your site 04-27-2012 07:01
I may not agree with your lot (at all, really) but I'm not an "alarmist". I'm not even a climate scientist, but a political scientist. Now, without a doubt, the Heartland Institute is the very model of a corporate funded lobbying group. In fact, there is a pretty good chance that Exxon Mobil payed for all their climate research.

On top of that, these are quotes from the experts themselves that were listed. In most cases their research was completely contrary to the claims that 500 thing was trying to make. This isn't from DeSmog, your opinion of them is irrelevant. If a group is going to publish a list that says signing scientists adhere to a hypothesis that happens to coincide with oil's interests (coincidence, I'm sure) why in the hell would they do something like that?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Robert
# Robert 04-27-2012 08:12
Who don't you ask them? Too difficult a concept?

Since it isn't from DeSmog, then how about you provide a link to the material in question from some more reliable source.

You provided the link to this to support whatever point you thought you were trying to make. That link was DeSmog, now you say "it isn't from DeSmog" well it sure looks that way from how you provide it.

Lie much? We've come to expect it from political "scientists."
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Laughing at your site
# Laughing at your site 04-27-2012 08:55
It's cute how you try, 'lil fella!

I don't really think you understand what I'm getting at here, buddy. What I said is that these are direct quotes from researchers that are listed as refuting AGW by Heartland. They are quotes of them replying in outrage as they disagree with that claim quite spectacularly. I'm not sure who you're telling me to ask and why you think it's such a difficult concept but a quick skimming of their published work shows they're definitely not on your side.

Dr. David Sugden is studying the thinning of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet around the Ellsworth Mountains and the Shackleton Mountains, using cosmogenic isotope analysis.
www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/des

Dr. Gregory Cutter did an analysis of contamination in North Pacific from Asian fossil fuel combustion
sci.odu.edu/oceanography/directory/faculty/cutter/
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Laughing at your site
# Laughing at your site 04-27-2012 08:56
Dr. Robert Whittaker actually published a paper on how he disagrees with you guys: Scientists and the media: the struggle for legitimacy in climate change and conservation science
www.geog.ox.ac.uk/staff/rwhittaker.html

Also, I guess a few signed two years after they died, soo...

Bond, G., Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_C._Bond

Bradbury, J. Pratt, USGS
digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1123&context=geosciencefacpub

Keeling, Charles D., Scripps Institute of Oceanography
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_David_Keeling

There y'go friend! I did aaaall your research for you! But only cause I like ya ;)
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Robert
# Robert 04-27-2012 09:54
Actually I understand, but none of what you provided recently or even any real point was included in your original comment.

The real point is not whether I understand, it is whether I care, because there is still nothing providing context of who said what.

And again you provide links to who these people are, but nothing tat provides any real context in relation to what you claim it means.

Must be the result of studying politicians for so long.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Laughing at your site
# Laughing at your site 04-27-2012 18:34
#Robert
[Sentence saying I'm smart and you're dumb]

[I didn't click on the links, a liberal posted them, I can't trust a liberal. I don't even care anyway]

[Even though there are records of people with the exact same name with the exact same degrees at the exact same universities publishing research that takes the opposite viewpoint, you didn't drag them to my doorstep and tell me word for word. So I don't believe you. Nuh-uh.]

[I need to attack you personally but all I know is that you said something about political science.. Oh well, here goes.]
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Robert
# Robert 04-27-2012 23:30
No, you just don't know how to compose an argument, since you are unable to there is no point reading your babble.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Laughing at your site
# Laughing at your site 04-28-2012 14:43
You're giving up already? Where's the fun in that?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Din365
# Din365 04-28-2012 17:06
Yeah well children believe in the easter bunny and santa claus, but belief alone does not make it so.

Even a political student like you must understand that when somebody "believes" or to "have faith" without anything definitive or anything the exact opposite is usually operating on assumptions. No Scientist on the faCE OF THIS PLANET or the alleged "deniers" have ever denied climate change, but have disputed what's responsible, and what the effects will be. a warmist defaultly just assumes it's C02\s fault, and humans are the main cause. Some have even gone a step further and suggest that "deniers" should be jailed, or sent to "re-education camps, and really want to shut down debate, which in itself is very unscientific and more political. Experimentation and debate for ALL sides is science. if we did "consensus" and faith-based science, then you may as well go piss on Galileo's grave, and put the church back in power of "scientific research"
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
amirlach
# amirlach 04-27-2012 23:20
DeSmear? Has Zero Credibility! Also funded by the Center for American Progress. joannenova.com.au/2012/02/update-heartland-documents-stolen-and-key-one-is-fake-no-insider-leak/ Wanna know why we are Laughing at you Laughing guy? Quote:
Heartland allegedly wins climate debate by buying scientists for $300k, while warmists lost it while splitting up $79 billion in US govt money?
joannenova.com.au/2012/02/logic-gate-the-smog-blog-exposes-irrational-rage-innumeracy-and-heartlands-efficient-success/
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
amirlach
# amirlach 04-28-2012 15:37
And really who can belive in the Alarmists Model Driven Drivel when it cannot skillfully predict even six months ahead? The Alarmists Post Modern "Climate Science" is an abysmal failure. While the people on the "List" you provided dissagree with us, the empirical observations dissagree with them and their "Models".

No wonder despite spending 79 Billion you alarmists are being WTFPAWNED! And at the bargain basement price of 300K ! Who's Laughing again? :D
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Robert
# Robert 04-28-2012 16:19
The question is Amirlach, does their research also support a different conclusion than the one they claim. Is that why they were on "the list"? No information has been provided in that regard.

But in the post-modern "science" apparently the only conclusion that anyone is supposed to reach regarding any research that is done is the conclusion the researchers desire. Regardless of whether their conclusion is valid, and regardless of whether other conclusions can be drawn from the results.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
amirlach
# amirlach 04-28-2012 20:01
Not sure what their re-surch concludes. But... Ill bet having your name on that "list" puts you on the US government funding for skeptical scientists List. There's exactly Zero Dirty Dirty Taxpayer funded Grant Dollars up for grabs in that trough. Quote:

USD spent in 2010
-Greenpeace $300m

-WWF $700m ” ($524m Euro)

-Pew Charitable Trust $360m

-Sierra Club $56m

-NSW climate change fund (just one random govt example) $750m

-UK university climate fund (just another random govt example) $360m

-Heartland Institute $7m (actually $6.4m)

-US government funding for climate science and technology $7,000m

-US government funding for “climate related appropriations” $1,300m

-Annual turnover in global carbon markets $120,000m

-Annual investment in renewable energy $243,000m

-US government funding for skeptical scientists $ 0


The one paper he linked to about "Contamination in North Pacific from Asian fossil fuel combustion" has nothing to do with "Climate Change". The paper deals with "Aeolian contamination of Se and Ag in the North Pacific from Asian fossil fuel combustion."
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Joker
# Joker 04-27-2012 10:35
Hey, Laughing at your site,

I bet you think you are sooooooooooooo smart coming up with a name like that.

You probably wear your sister's dresses.

Ho Ho Ho
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Laughing at your site
# Laughing at your site 04-27-2012 18:21
No, my sister isn't too in to dresses.

But your mother's dress looks great on my bedroom floor, I might try that one on, yeah.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Me
# Me 04-29-2012 05:57
By da looks of yo brother Lisa, you will be wearng pants too, soon enough!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Me
# Me 04-29-2012 06:00
Oh Yeah, Fogot! HEEE HEEE HEEE HEEE!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Joker
# Joker 04-29-2012 06:28
Awesome!

Thanks Me

Hey Laughing at your site, check out the new Ultravox record, it's on You Tube, it's called Brilliant!

Which you ain't and never will be.

Ha Ha Ha!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Me
# Me 04-29-2012 23:53
;-) HEEE HEEE HEEE HEEE!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Me
# Me 04-30-2012 00:16
Dis be more fitting to dat Douche Laughing at your site!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbFwImfuBQ4

www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwP8CbJlpoc&feature=related

yeah.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 

Add comment

Before posting a comment, please read the Terms of Service (click here). Long links are shortened but still work.

PLEASE report all spam/inappropriate comments using the 'Report to administrator' link. If you find your post gone, it's because you violated the TOS.


Security code
Refresh