Heartland Institute Building Anti-Science Curriculum

AndyH · Feb 16, 2012

Leaked documents suggest that an organization known for attacking climate science is planning a new push to undermine the teaching of global warming in public schools, the latest indication that climate change is becoming a part of the nation’s culture wars.

edit
The school curriculum is being prepared by a coal industry consultant...
http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012...ience-polluter-co2-is-the-global-food-supply/
/edit
A fairly large collection of documents apparently leaked from the Heartland Institute provide insight into donors and priorities. More here:

http://climatecrocks.com/2012/02/15...-joe-camel-looks-like-were-going-to-find-out/
http://climatecrocks.com/2012/02/15/toxic-leak-swamps-denial-ville/
http://climatecrocks.com/2012/02/16/a-bright-spotlight-on-heartland-donors/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/16/s...redit-climate-teaching.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1

http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland...documents-unmask-heart-climate-denial-machine
http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/(1-15-2012) 2012 Fundraising Plan.pdf

Yes, Herm, there are 'scientists' being paid to promote an agenda. And many are listed here along with their fees.

“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.”

AndyH · Feb 22, 2012

Controversial US think tank the Heartland Institute has sent legal letters to bloggers and writers who reported on the release of the leaked Heartland Institute documents last week.

The Heartland documents revealed the key donors for the institute, plans for a K-12 curriculum based on a climate science denier agenda and how much well-known climate science denialists are paid to push the anti-climate change agenda for Heartland.

Heartland’s communications spokesperson Jim Lakely told Crikey that so far five media organisations have been sent legal letters: Brendan de Melle from DeSmog Blog, Brad Johnson from ThinkProgress, Arianna Huffington from The Huffington Post, John H. Harris from Politico and Greg Laden, a blogger at ScienceBlogs. However at least one other climate blog received a legal notice notice.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/02/20...tion-against-climate-change-bloggers-journos/
http://climatecrocks.com/2012/02/20/heartland-mystery-donor-to-be-unmasked/

AndyH · Feb 23, 2012

It doesn't take long for the water to get muddy once derivative reporting starts to flow. And frankly, since I've not been reading every link or following this 24/7 since the leak, maybe my view is incorrect. But it's interesting to watch it unfold.

The Heartland Institute's main focus appears to be on a document they say is fake - and they appear to use that as proof that the rest of the documents are as well. But that's been debunked simply by the flow of info - it would seem to be difficult to disavow the documents that they clearly sent to the 'outside world' - even though they thought they weren't being sent to the outside world. How significant is their denial if in the end the original memo is proven false even though it is proven 100% accurate by documents the institute released?

Apparently, someone with apparent access to the inside of the Heartland Institute mailed a memo to a scientist/author/journalist. It appears that scientist/author/journalist posed as a Heartland insider to request a 'resend' of documents sent to the board in advance of a meeting - and that someone at Heartland fell for the 'social engineering' exercise.
Gleick confirms document source:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/heartland-institute-documents_b_1289669.html

In the end, this might damage Dr. Gleick's reputation in some circles. And it's apparently already being used in the 'denial-sphere' to reinforce their view about 'all those lying scientists' - and that's unfortunate especially since they're ignoring the 'scientists' implicated in the Heartland docs that ARE on the take. But in light of the very active and successful campaign the denial industry has mounted against science in many areas, I think it's about time someone had the ...fortitude...to strike back. And this point is made very well by the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund:

http://www.peer.org/docs/doc/2_21_12_Heartland_Institute_turnabout_ltr.pdf

February 21, 2012
Ms. Maureen Martin
General Counsel
The Heartland Institute
One South Wacker Drive #2740
Chicago, IL 60606

Dear Ms. Martin:
As a community that has been through similar invasions of our privacy, we understand
what you are going through. We were struck by the eloquence of your words in
describing your situation. We could not think of a better way to describe our feelings
than with the words you've crafted.

Forgive us for taking the following paragraphs from your website and recent letters to
members of the blogger and journalistic community, but as it is often said imitation is the
sincerest form of flattery.

In November 2009 groups posted online several documents they claimed were the emails
of climate scientists. These documents were stolen from Climatic Research Unit at the
University of East Anglia.

Disagreement over the causes, consequences, and best policy responses to climate change
runs deep. We understand that.

But honest disagreement should never be used to justify the criminal acts and fraud that
occurred. As a matter of common decency and journalistic ethics, we ask everyone in the
climate change debate to sit back and think about what just happened. Those persons who
posted these documents and wrote about them before we had a chance to comment on
their authenticity should be ashamed of their deeds, and their bad behavior should be
taken into account when judging their credibility now and in the future.

Furthermore, the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund views the malicious and
fraudulent manner in which the Climatic Research Unit documents were obtained and/or
thereafter disseminated, as well as the repeated blogs about them, as providing the basis
for civil actions against those who obtained and/or disseminated them and blogged about
them. The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund fully intends to pursue all possible
actionable civil remedies to the fullest extent of the law.

We respectfully ask the Heartland Institute, all activists, bloggers, and other journalists to
immediately remove all of these documents and any quotations taken from them, from
their blogs, Web sites, and publications, and to publish retractions.

Cordially,

Scott A. Mandia & Joshua Wolfe
Climate Science Legal Defense Fund: "Protecting the Scientific Endeavor"

Jeff Ruch
PEER Executive Director

I suspect it's long past time for the scientific community to line up and "Occupy the Truth" - and if necessary to declare war on those trying to ... well, I'll leave it to the president of the AAAS:

Most scientists, on achieving high office, keep their public remarks to the bland and reassuring. Last week Nina Fedoroff, the president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), broke ranks in a spectacular manner.

She confessed that she was now "scared to death" by the anti-science movement that was spreading, uncontrolled, across the US and the rest of the western world.

"We are sliding back into a dark era," she said. "And there seems little we can do about it. I am profoundly depressed at just how difficult it has become merely to get a realistic conversation started on issues such as climate change or genetically modified organisms."

The remarks of Fedoroff, one of the world's most distinguished agricultural scientists, are all the more remarkable given their setting.

She made them at the AAAS annual meeting, an event at which scientists normally revel in their latest accomplishments: new insights into marine biology or first results from a recently launched satellite, for example.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/feb/19/science-scepticism-usdomesticpolicy

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing..."

edit... Seems much the above has already been covered here:
http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/do-not-take-your-eyes-off-lex-luthor-heartland-institute/

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012...eral-counsel-responds-to-heartland-institute/

GaslessInSeattle · Feb 23, 2012

I hope the day when you can hide crony capitalism under a thin veil of religious fundamentalism will come soon to an end.

"Science is a matter of faith, didn't ya know?"

Herm · Feb 23, 2012

AndyH said:
Yes, Herm, there are 'scientists' being paid to promote an agenda. And many are listed here along with their fees.

The Skeptics deserve to make a living too, after all they are fighting the Warmist's scam and risking their careers. Luckily the tide appears to be turning.

Actually I have not read anything on this subject, seems like a lot of nothing

AndyH · Feb 24, 2012

Herm said:
AndyH said:

Yes, Herm, there are 'scientists' being paid to promote an agenda. And many are listed here along with their fees.

Click to expand...

The Skeptics deserve to make a living too

The true 'skeptics' are science and scientists, Herm. Science as a process is one of requiring proof after proof after proof to refine a position - and the very nature of the peer review process is one of trying to break, mangle, find weakness in and disprove experimental findings.

Herm said:
..., after all they are fighting the Warmist's scam

There is no 'warmist scam' - that some believe there is a scam IS the problem. The Heartland Institute and their ilk are the disease vector that cause people like you to have the mental cancers.

Herm said:
and risking their careers.

What career is that, exactly?

Herm said:
Luckily the tide appears to be turning.

The tide isn't turning, Herm, it's just continuing to rise because gullible people "believe" Heartland shills rather than hard data in black-and-white.

It's pretty funny, Herm, that we're here - again. Because from about 9 to 10:30 this morning I was doing a fun CO2 experiment. I'll attach the procedure in case you'd like to see for yourself what CO2 does to temperature. Funny thing is that this experiment is repeated in many high school classes around the world. That's why our kids can see through the propaganda from liars like the Heartland Institute better than those of us with gray hair.

BRBarian · Feb 24, 2012

Herm said:
Actually I have not read anything on this subject, seems like a lot of nothing

Then why cheer the spreading of disinformation and lies?

Why fall for all the BS and spout it back? What does this gain you?

Herm · Feb 24, 2012

AndyH said:
It's pretty funny, Herm, that we're here - again. Because from about 9 to 10:30 this morning I was doing a fun CO2 experiment. I'll attach the procedure in case you'd like to see for yourself what CO2 does to temperature. Funny thing is that this experiment is repeated in many high school classes around the world. That's why our kids can see through the propaganda from liars like the Heartland Institute better than those of us with gray hair.

I have known about the greenhouse effect since I was a kid (science fan).. thats a pretty elaborate class experiment you have there. Let me propose a different one for your more advanced students. Get a couple of sealed aquariums fitted with air valves.. fill one up with 300ppm CO2 air and the other with 400ppm. You probably will have to use medical equipment to blend the CO2 that precisely.. fit the tanks with precise thermometers and put the tanks under a bank of lights (you choose the frequencies).. switch everything around once in a while to account for irregularities, calibration and see what you get. Try different greenhouse gases also.

If the medical equipment is out of the budget then perhaps a minute amount of baking soda and some way to purge the tanks with pure dry air.. a compressed air diving tank?. The kids can work out how much baking soda is needed.

Herm · Feb 24, 2012

BRBarian said:
Then why cheer the spreading of disinformation and lies?
Why fall for all the BS and spout it back? What does this gain you?

Perhaps I dont think it is BS, disinformation and lies.. I know, shocking

History may absolve the Heartland people after the AGW cult collapses.. hard to say since many historians are of the leftish persuasion.

AndyH · Feb 24, 2012

Herm said:
AndyH said:

It's pretty funny, Herm, that we're here - again. Because from about 9 to 10:30 this morning I was doing a fun CO2 experiment. I'll attach the procedure in case you'd like to see for yourself what CO2 does to temperature. Funny thing is that this experiment is repeated in many high school classes around the world. That's why our kids can see through the propaganda from liars like the Heartland Institute better than those of us with gray hair.

Click to expand...

I have known about the greenhouse effect since I was a kid (science fan).. thats a pretty elaborate class experiment you have there. Let me propose a different one for your more advanced students. Get a couple of sealed aquariums fitted with air valves.. fill one up with 300ppm CO2 air and the other with 400ppm. You probably will have to use medical equipment to blend the CO2 that precisely.. fit the tanks with precise thermometers and put the tanks under a bank of lights (you choose the frequencies).. switch everything around once in a while to account for irregularities, calibration and see what you get. Try different greenhouse gases also.

If the medical equipment is out of the budget then perhaps a minute amount of baking soda and some way to purge the tanks with pure dry air.. a compressed air diving tank?. The kids can work out how much baking soda is needed.

It would have been more interesting and meaningful to run a more sophisticated experiment - absolutely. And yet this rather crude project was more than enough to get the point across. Nothing explodes, though. :lol:

The point, though, Herm, is that the more advanced undergrad students are working with the much larger experiment we're running on this planet - they and the grad students and the rest of the real scientists don't need to play with 2.5 gallon aquariums because all the different gas experiments have been done - many more than 100 years ago. The laws of physics don't move when a lobbying organization says 'jump.'

So no - what's happening here is not about 'belief' and it's not about a mass conspiracy of scientists on the take - it's about a coordinated campaign of lies that directly result in harm to this country and her people.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DjPo0ewuCw[/youtube]

Rush is right when he talks about mind-numbed robots -- but he's wrong when he says they're liberals or progressives. They're created by folks like those at Heartland, because they know that the best lies have seeds of truth inside. Too bad they didn't learn that we don't get anywhere good by lying.

BRBarian · Feb 24, 2012

Herm said:
BRBarian said:

Then why cheer the spreading of disinformation and lies?
Why fall for all the BS and spout it back? What does this gain you?

Click to expand...

Perhaps I dont think it is BS, disinformation and lies.. I know, shocking

History may absolve the Heartland people after the AGW cult collapses.. hard to say since many historians are of the leftish persuasion.

Aren't you embarrassed by posting something like this? No shame at all? Nothing??

Especially after posting this:

Herm said:
Actually I have not read anything on this subject, seems like a lot of nothing

"...historians are of the leftish persuasion." Duh.. They're educated. Education is the #2 correlation factor in someone's political disposition.

Ohhh. and the jury is already back in on global warming. We're now just trying to assess the potential damage to mankind. Do try to keep up.

thankyouOB · Feb 24, 2012

dont hold your breath waiting for those on the right to be embarrassed or come to their senses.
and dont bother arguing with them using logic or facts, as they are not part of the reality-based community.
some of our friends here exhibit all the classic symptoms of that crowd.

they dont even realize that by owning and driving a Leaf they are forwarding the environmentalist conspiracy.

klapauzius · Feb 24, 2012

BRBarian said:
Aren't you embarrassed by posting something like this? No shame at all? Nothing??

No need to be upset. Such opinions are natural for conservatives.

I thought this study was long overdue:

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/23/2/187.short" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Simple minds have always shied away from complex problems. Global warming is just such a problem. If there
was a clear cut immediate consequence of our actions, even conservatives would get it. Unfortunately, it seems that
it will take a few decades to become that obvious, and most peoples attention span is not that long.

BRBarian · Feb 24, 2012

thankyouOB said:
...they are not part of the reality-based community.
some of our friends here exhibit all the classic symptoms of that crowd.

they dont even realize that by owning and driving a Leaf they are forwarding the environmentalist conspiracy.

I see it differently. I see Herm as someone who is not stupid but takes pride in spouting stupid stuff here. Why? I believe it can be best explained in terms of tribalism. He belongs to the "stupid" tribe, so he does this stuff to continue to fit in. Coming here and smacking us with his tribal nonsense wins bravery points. Veracity is totally irrelevant.
If, instead, he plays an intellectually honest role, he's betraying his tribe. For some people, that's far more difficult than being honest. (But it's likely that he doesn't fit in anywhere...)

BRBarian · Feb 24, 2012

Herm said:
I have known about the greenhouse effect since I was a kid (science fan).. thats a pretty elaborate class experiment you have there. Let me propose a different one for your more advanced students. Get a couple of sealed aquariums fitted with air valves.. fill one up with 300ppm CO2 air and the other with 400ppm. You probably will have to use medical equipment to blend the CO2 that precisely.. fit the tanks with precise thermometers and put the tanks under a bank of lights (you choose the frequencies).. switch everything around once in a while to account for irregularities, calibration and see what you get. Try different greenhouse gases also.

If the medical equipment is out of the budget then perhaps a minute amount of baking soda and some way to purge the tanks with pure dry air.. a compressed air diving tank?. The kids can work out how much baking soda is needed.

That experiment doesn't work. To make this work, you need to keep the CO2 and the aquarium in separate tanks that are thermally separated. Adding energy into a single sealed tank will warm it the same whether the light is absorbed by the gas or the water/earth below.... makes no difference.

walterbays · Feb 24, 2012

Because the right wing media is anti-science the conservative voices we hear are often anti-science, so it's easy to conclude that conservatives reject science. Because the right wing media is on a crusade against EVs we may think that conservatives hate EVs. I prefer to think that the majority of conservatives have little voice today; that a conservative may well be a conservationist; that a conservative who is skeptical of global warming may drive an EV for reasons of national security, national economic security, cost savings, or because it's fun; that a liberal may drive an EV for those reasons as well; that most people have a variety of reasons for choosing any car.

Are EVs for liberals only, and real conservatives drive only SUVs? That's the idea that Rush Limbaugh and Ayman al-Zawahiri would love for us to accept. Let's not accept it.

thankyouOB · Feb 24, 2012

:mrgreen:

padamson1 · Feb 25, 2012

BRBarian said:
That experiment doesn't work. To make this work, you need to keep the CO2 and the aquarium in separate tanks that are thermally separated. Adding energy into a single sealed tank will warm it the same whether the light is absorbed by the gas or the water/earth below.... makes no difference.

Actually it's worse than that. The tanks will both seek equilibrium with the surrounding thermal mass that contains them. An experiment that show the heat capturing capabilities of CO2 needs to have the surrounding area be a significantly lower temperature (preferably a vacuum like space) to demonstrate what CO2 does, helping retain the heat.

Personally the whole argument doesn't really need any lab experiments. Humans dump millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, remove thousands of square miles of trees (which could counter the CO2) every year, replace vegetation with black rooftop and pavement, so it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out we're affecting the planet. The fact that glaciers are melting, CO2 levels are higher than they've been since before the last ice age (as measured in ice core samples), ice pack coverage is lower than ever noted in recorded history and temperatures are trending upward all makes sense. I tend to trust the guys who have studied this for years. If a vast majority say it's bad, I'm willing to believe it, even if I have to change the way I do business to fix it.

Herm · Feb 25, 2012

http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/02/22/is-catastrophic-global-warming-like-the-millenium-bug-a-mistake/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"At a public meeting in the Commons, the climate scientist Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT made a number of declarations that unsettle the claim that global warming is backed by “settled science”. They’re not new, but some of them were new to me."

from the comments:

"Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940) is an American atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen is known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books.[1] He was a lead author of Chapter 7, 'Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,' of the IPCC Third Assessment Report on climate change. He is a well known skeptic concerning catastrophic global warming[2] and critic of what he states are political pressures on climate scientists to conform to what he has called climate alarmism.[3]"

abasile · Feb 25, 2012

walterbays said:
Because the right wing media is anti-science the conservative voices we hear are often anti-science, so it's easy to conclude that conservatives reject science. Because the right wing media is on a crusade against EVs we may think that conservatives hate EVs. I prefer to think that the majority of conservatives have little voice today; that a conservative may well be a conservationist; that a conservative who is skeptical of global warming may drive an EV for reasons of national security, national economic security, cost savings, or because it's fun; that a liberal may drive an EV for those reasons as well; that most people have a variety of reasons for choosing any car.

Are EVs for liberals only, and real conservatives drive only SUVs? That's the idea that Rush Limbaugh and Ayman al-Zawahiri would love for us to accept. Let's not accept it.

Thank you for saying this. Many of my views are conservative and I believe it is our God-given duty to be good stewards of the extraordinary planet that we are blessed with. I really don't care if other conservatives think I'm a bit off kilter because I accept the conclusions of the great majority of climate scientists. At this point, I really do not feel represented by any of the 2012 Republican candidates, nor by the current President. I suspect that is true of a very sizable percentage of the country, hence the growing number of Independent voters.

Heartland Institute Building Anti-Science Curriculum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Join the conversation!

Join today and get all the highlights of this community direct to your inbox. It's FREE!