The Heartland Institute is Fighting Mad
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.

Add comment
Newest comments at top. 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.

Comments
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
But your mother's dress looks great on my bedroom floor, I might try that one on, yeah.
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!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbFwImfuBQ4
www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwP8CbJlpoc&feature=related
yeah.
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
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.
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?
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."
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/
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 ;)
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.
[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.]
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"
No wonder despite spending 79 Billion you alarmists are being WTFPAWNED! And at the bargain basement price of 300K ! Who's Laughing again?
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.
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."