Leaks show group's climate efforts

Feb 16, 2012 By SETH BORENSTEIN , AP Science Writer

(AP) -- Leaked documents from a prominent conservative think tank show how it sought to teach schoolchildren skepticism about global warming and planned other behind-the-scenes tactics using millions of dollars in donations from big corporate names.

More than $14 million of the money used by the Chicago-based Heartland Institute would come from one anonymous man, according to the leaked prepared for a meeting of the group's board.

Heartland is one of the loudest voices denying man-made , hosting the largest international scientific conference of skeptics on . Several of its documents were leaked this week to the news media, showing the planning and money behind its efforts. Heartland said some of the documents weren't accurate, but declined to be more specific.

As detailed in the papers, Heartland's plans for this year included paying an consultant $100,000 to design a curriculum to teach school children that mainstream global warming science is in dispute, even though it's a fact accepted by the federal government and nearly every scientific professional organization. It also pays prominent global warming skeptics more than $300,000 a year and plans to raise $88,000 to help a former television weatherman set up a new temperature records website.

"The stolen documents appear to have been written by Heartland's president for a board meeting that took place on Jan. 17," Heartland said in a statement. "The authenticity of those documents has not been confirmed." The institute singled out one of the six documents - claiming to be a summary of efforts on the issue of global warming - as a fake.

Because Heartland was not specific about what was fake and what was real, The Associated Press attempted to verify independently key parts of separate budget and fundraising documents that were leaked. The federal consultant working on the classroom curriculum, the former TV weatherman, a Chicago elected official who campaigns against hidden local debt and two corporate donors all confirmed to the AP that the sections in the document that pertained to them were accurate. No one the AP contacted said the budget or fundraising documents mentioning them were incorrect.

David Wojick, a Virginia-based federal database contractor, said in an email that the document was accurate about his project to put curriculum materials in schools that promote climate .

"My goal is to help them teach one of the greatest scientific debates in history," Wojick said. "This means teaching both sides of the science, more science, not less."

Five government and university climate scientists contacted said they were most disturbed by Wojick's project, fearing the teaching would be more propaganda rooted in politics than peer-reviewed science.

Businesses and other interests often offer free curriculum materials to financially strapped schools, hoping that teachers will use them and help disseminate their views or promote their products.

Energy Department spokeswoman Jen Stutsman said Wojick's federal work has nothing to do with climate change and that the agency maintains that global warming is real and manmade.

Heartland also planned to spend $210,000 to help Cook County Treasurer Maria Pappas tour the nation to speak about municipal debt, according to one document. Pappas lost to Barack Obama in the 2004 Democratic primary for a U.S. Senate seat. Pappas confirmed this in a phone interview, saying what Heartland was doing was exposing a "financial tsunami" of municipal debt.

The leaked document also discusses a new million-dollar Heartland initiative to promote the ability of patients to use experimental drugs that have not yet received federal safety approval, and efforts to support embattled Wisconsin Republican leaders in "Operation Angry Badger." Those parts of the documents were not independently confirmed.

The documents also show Heartland has raised more than $2 million from large insurance companies and nearly half a million dollars from tobacco interests.

A person who emailed 15 media and bloggers as "Heartland insider" sent six different documents purporting to be from the libertarian think tank. The insider then killed the email account used to send the documents and could not be reached. Heartland spokesman Jim Lakely would not confirm or deny the claims made in the five documents that he did not call fake.

The most sensational parts of the documents - and much of what has been confirmed independently - had to do with global warming and efforts to spread doubt into what mainstream scientists are saying. Experts long have thought Heartland and other groups were working to muddy the waters about global warming, said Harry Lambright, a Syracuse University public policy professor who specializes in environment, science and technology issues.

"Scientifically there is no controversy. Politically, there is a controversy because there are political interest groups making it a controversy," Lambright said. "It's not about science. It's about politics. To some extent they are winning the battle."

A 2010 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences surveyed more than 1,300 most cited and published climate scientists and found that 97 percent of them said climate change was a man-made problem. Yet, public opinion polls show far more doubt in the American public.

An environmental advocacy group, Forecast the Facts, on Thursday started a petition and social media campaign to complain to two of Heartland's corporate donors listed on the documents, Microsoft and General Motors. The two were not the biggest donors; Microsoft donated $69,000 over three years, while the General Motors Foundation gave $45,000. But those are companies that "need to hear from their customers" that they are not happy about promoting climate skepticism, especially after General Motors got a government bailout, campaign director Daniel Souweine said.

General Motors spokesman Greg Martin said the company's foundation gives money to "a variety of different groups holding a variety of opinions." Microsoft said through its public relations agency that it donates software to 44,000 nonprofits that pass IRS standards, as Heartland does, and that it considers climate change a serious issue.

The documents showed how heavily Heartland relies on a single person it identified only as "Anonymous Donor." In the past six years, the man has given $14.26 million to the institute, nearly half its $33.9 million in revenue.

Explore further: Climate change and air pollution will combine to curb food supplies

More information: Heartland Institute: http://heartland.org/

Forecast the Facts campaign against Heartland donors: http://bit.ly/wfd3uY

4.3 /5 (11 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Scientist: Leak of climate e-mails appalling

Nov 23, 2009

(AP) -- A leading climate change scientist whose private e-mails are included in thousands of documents that were stolen by hackers and posted online said Sunday the leaks may have been aimed at undermining next month's ...

Hackers leak e-mails, stoke climate debate

Nov 21, 2009

(AP) -- Computer hackers have broken into a server at a well-respected climate change research center in Britain and posted hundreds of private e-mails and documents online - stoking debate over whether some scientists have ...

1,700 UK scientists back climate science

Dec 10, 2009

(AP) -- Fighting back against climate skeptics, over 1,700 scientists in Britain have signed a statement defending the evidence that climate change is being caused by humans, Britain's weather office said Thursday.

Recommended for you

Phytoplankton use turbulence to survive

3 minutes ago

A unique water profiling instrument developed by The University of Western Australia's Centre for Water Research (CWR) is enabling scientists to understand the impact of even the most subtle turbulence on ...

Pacific summit to urge action on climate change

4 hours ago

Pacific island leaders will renew calls for meaningful action on climate change at a regional summit opening in Palau on Tuesday, amid fears rising seas will swamp their low-lying nations.

US plans widespread seismic testing of sea floor

Jul 26, 2014

(AP)—The U.S. government is planning to use sound blasting to conduct research on the ocean floor along most of the East Coast, using technology similar to that which led to a court battle by environmentalists in New Jersey.

User comments : 96

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

lengould100
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 16, 2012
Businesses and other interests often offer free curriculum materials to financially strapped schools, hoping that teachers will use them and help disseminate their views or promote their products.
An education system which has sunk this low is probably not recoverable.
Howhot
3.3 / 5 (14) Feb 16, 2012
1,300 most cited and published climate scientists and found that 97 percent of them said climate change was a man-made problem. Yet, public opinion polls show far more doubt in the American public.


And now you know why. All of the Global Warming skeptics have been BRAIN WASHED with the rightwing anti-environmental propaganda campaign for years. Years! You meet the trolls here everyday with the same anti-science anti-physorg comments.
They don't have brains. They are minions to Heartland and the other "Conservative" BS think tanks.

I'm so glad to see them exposed for the TROLLS they are!
gregor1
2.4 / 5 (14) Feb 16, 2012
Is it a surprise that science requires funding? My guess is they were looking for evidence of "Big oil" and didn't find it. The " former television weatherman" you mention is Anthony Watts and his blog has had over 100,000,000 million hits, Ignore him at your peril His take on thishttp://wattsupwit...nd-leak/ Please can we have a link for the 97% of climate scientists claim. From what I can find the question they were asked was "Do you think man's activities can influence the climate?" If so I'm a bit concerned they didn't get %100. Even the most ardent skeptics don't dispute this.
Excalibur
3.9 / 5 (11) Feb 16, 2012
You seem to be a bit all over the place, and more than a little vague as to your position, gregor1.
gregor1
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 16, 2012
Oh... and I'm a former pre-school student if you want to write patronizing and biased things about me....
gregor1
1.9 / 5 (17) Feb 16, 2012
@ Excalibur. I just have a belief that journalism should present a balanced view. The climate system is incredibly complex and vague is a correct position. Pretense at certainty has created a polarized debate that leads nowhere. Science only progresses when we are willing to admit what we don't know. The above article is appallingly biased
Shootist
2 / 5 (12) Feb 17, 2012
Leaks show group's climate efforts


Or not.

http://www.theatl.../253165/
Excalibur
4.1 / 5 (10) Feb 17, 2012
With the exception of your unsubstantiated claim re. the article being biased, gregor1, you are still being vague and evasive.

Are we to conclude that you do not allow of AGW or even GW?
deepsand
4.1 / 5 (13) Feb 17, 2012
Leaks show group's climate efforts


Or not.

http://www.theatl.../253165/

From the cited article we read "Heartland has confirmed the provenance of most of the documents ..."
StarGazer2011
2.2 / 5 (13) Feb 17, 2012
I would have thought the 15 year 'hiatus' in warming would have falsified the models in the minds of most people, but its understandable how many people deny the science thanks to a few billion per year in alarmist funds.
Whats amazing is despite alarmists recieving thousands of times more money to promote their agenda, science is winning and people are righfully skeptical of the post-normal doomsday claims co-opted by Agenda21.
The article demonstrates only $33mn over 6 years, a rounding error in the Greenpeace budget (310mn per year) let alone the billions wasted by various governments to promote alarmism, and yet science is winning over post normalism in the minds of most people.
Of course most alarmists believe in things that cant be detected or measured, like any warming since 1998, or 'big oil money', but of course intelligent people demand evidence, which the alarmists are sadly lacking.
StarGazer2011
2.2 / 5 (13) Feb 17, 2012
1,300 most cited and published climate scientists and found that 97 percent of them said climate change was a man-made problem. Yet, public opinion polls show far more doubt in the American public.


And now you know why. All of the Global Warming skeptics have been BRAIN WASHED with the rightwing anti-environmental propaganda campaign for years. Years! You meet the trolls here everyday with the same anti-science anti-physorg comments.
They don't have brains. They are minions to Heartland and the other "Conservative" BS think tanks.

I'm so glad to see them exposed for the TROLLS they are!


Are you joking? Why is the 'right wing propoganda' so much more effective than the BILLIONS spent on 'alarmist propoganda' in schools, television and government? I mean, seriously, you would have to be a climate scientist to believe that rubbish!
gregor1
2.3 / 5 (15) Feb 17, 2012
The documents were stolen not leaked when the thief posed as a board member. The Heartland Institute has clearly stated which document was fake. The author refers to Anthony Watts as a former TV weatherman when he runs a highly visible (100,000,000 hits visible) climate blog where he addresses the theft. Why did they interview Lambright and not Watts? As for the 97% claim there are over 900 peer reviewed papers supporting the skeptics claims http://www.popula...ing.html
Portraying them as outsiders seems a little biased to me and does little to advance the green/ warmest "cause. Polls show the greenies have been painting themselves into a corner for years. The boy has cried "wolf" about a thousand times too often to have effect in a democracy.
deepsand
3.8 / 5 (17) Feb 17, 2012
I would have thought the 15 year 'hiatus' in warming ...

When was that?

Certainly not recently, as evidenced by NASA data showing that, "The global average surface temperature in 2011 was the ninth warmest since 1880, according to NASA scientists. The finding continues a trend in which nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000."

http://www.nasa.g...mps.html
Excalibur
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 17, 2012
Portraying them as outsiders seems a little biased ...


Fact or fiction are dependent on how data are obtained?
gregor1
2.3 / 5 (15) Feb 17, 2012
deepsand. The temperature record you've linked to clearly shows the lack of warming. The fact that it was the hottest year since 1880 is neither here nor there (as we are still coming out of the little ice age). Kevin Trenberth (lead author for the IPCC) clearly says it is a travesty that this lack of warming at the moment cant be accounted for in the leaked climategate emails. Of course he told us the opposite...
Excalibur
3.8 / 5 (13) Feb 17, 2012
That, mate, is a crock. That there has been a clear upward trend over the past century is dismissed only by the blind and the foolish.
deepsand
4.2 / 5 (15) Feb 17, 2012
The temperature record you've linked to clearly shows the lack of warming.

Are you blind?

Even the one-eyed man can clearly see the continued upward trend in the graph there presented, a trend that dates back to the turn of the 20th century.
gregor1
2.2 / 5 (17) Feb 17, 2012
Deepsand. The 9th warmest year was 2011. The warmest year 1998 . The trend is down. Sorry...
Excalibur
4.4 / 5 (13) Feb 17, 2012
That, mate, is doubly crock.

"The finding continues a trend in which nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000."

And, you've deliberately evaded the long term trend evidenced in the graph.
Just_some_guy
3.9 / 5 (11) Feb 17, 2012
Deepsand. The 9th warmest year was 2011. The warmest year 1998 . The trend is down. Sorry...


Gregor, I think you need to take a statistics class or two before making comments like the one above...
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (12) Feb 17, 2012
My goal is to help them teach one of the greatest scientific debates in history

What debate? There is no debate on this in the scienific community. There is only a debate BETWEEN the scientific community and the likes of him. That is a populistic debate - not a scientific debate.

Yet, public opinion polls show far more doubt in the American public.

Who cares? If I want my car fixed I go to a mechanic. I don't ask the public what it thinks about the strange noise coming from the transmission. Why is anyone concerned about what the public thinks on stuff it doesn't understand?
rubberman
4.3 / 5 (11) Feb 17, 2012
"Are you joking? Why is the 'right wing propoganda' so much more effective than the BILLIONS spent on 'alarmist propoganda' in schools, television and government? I mean, seriously, you would have to be a climate scientist to believe that rubbish!"

So by 'alarmist propaganda' you would be talking about pictures showing dissappearing polar ice, pictures displaying the extent of glacial retreat and pictures showing ground deformation where permafrost has melted in places that it hasn't in recorded history. And the billions would be the cost of scientific research that produced these things ordinarily referred to as "evidence" by the scientific community....or 'propaganda' by ignorant shills with a personally motivated agenda that has nothing to do with science whatsoever.
gmurphy
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 17, 2012
Frankly, I'm not surprised, vested interests have been trying to undermine scientific knowledge which threatens their comfortable existence since the dawn of Physics. The Copernicus solar system model, the threat from leaded petrol, evolution and CO2 induced climate change have all been attacked by subversive and underhand elements, it's the nature of our species but we should take heart from history and note that the truth always prevails.
MC62
2.6 / 5 (10) Feb 17, 2012
GreenPeace takes in over 340 million in a year add Earth First, The Sierra Club, WWF etc etc and how much propaganda money does it add up to? How much of Big Enviro's money comes from Big Oil? How much is tax-payer funded? and you clowns are worried about a measly 14 million--please get real or get lost. I was at the NIPCC conference in Washington DC last July when Heartland announced they didn't have enough money to pay for the conference and that donors would have to be contacted to pay the balance. The truth is the alarmists commenting on this thread are petrified of real science because it might dent their egos and affect their pocket books.
rubberman
3.4 / 5 (10) Feb 17, 2012
The truth is the alarmists commenting on this thread are petrified of real science because it might dent their egos and affect their pocket books.

Define "real science" for starters.
97% of the scientific community would like to know what you do and they dont.
The only way denialists can attempt to argue scientifically against AGW is by cherry picking a band aid solution for every piece of evidence linked to it.

It's either a myriad of localized phenomenon, it's happened in the past so whatever caused it then is causing it again, or my favorite...the "nothing is wrong, were all good here" outlook.
If ignorance is bliss then denying AGW must just make people happy....
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 17, 2012
How many were forced to watch Algore's movie in school?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2012
And from the front lines:
"As an educator in the field of science for 10 years, I am myself still very skeptical...I see too many dollar signs involved in this indoctrination.
Educator, Middle School, Oklahoma
http://nsta.org/p...id=59035
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 17, 2012
"The documents showed how heavily Heartland relies on a single person it identified only as "Anonymous Donor." In the past six years, the man has given $14.26 million to the institute, nearly half its $33.9 million in revenue."

A drop in the bucket compared to the socialist Soros.

"Billionaire George Soros, looking to address the political problem of climate change, said he will invest $1 billion in clean-energy technology and donate $100 million to an environmental advisory group to aid policymakers. "
"Soros, 79, also will establish the Climate Policy Initiative, a San Francisco-based organization to which he will donate $10 million a year for 10 years. "
http://www.bloomb...EmSWfjiQ
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 17, 2012
Where is the physorg expose on all the 'liberal' donors supporting AGW?
But this site has the gall to censor for 'political' reasons.
rubberman
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 17, 2012
Where is the physorg expose on all the 'liberal' donors supporting AGW?
But this site has the gall to censor for 'political' reasons.


You want an expose on people donating money to try to help solve a problem everyone except the ignorant view as a problem?
gregor1
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2012
Evidence in the form of peer reviewed scientific papers. Here are 900 that debunk the alarmist hypothesis http://www.popula...ml#Coral
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 17, 2012
It is only the 'greedy' who want the status quo?
It was Enron's Ken Lay that pushed for Kyoto to make a profit.
As noted Soros and many other 'greedy' socialists are eager to profit from more govt control of the environment and economy.
gregor1
1 / 5 (7) Feb 17, 2012
Rubberman. Here are 900 peer reviewed papers that help to debunk the alarmist hypothesis. Please read all 900 and report back. Clearly 97% of scientists haven't read them unless of course they were actually asked "Do you think man's activities can influence the climate?" after all. You must agree 900 is quite a large number when Einstein only required one.
http://www.popula...ml#Coral
deepsand
5 / 5 (10) Feb 17, 2012
A look at the Titles alone of the publications there cited are sufficient for knowing that most of such are authored by those rendering conclusions outside their expertise.

Citing this list is no more than a grandiose exercise in the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam, aka argument from/appeal to authority.
gregor1
1 / 5 (7) Feb 17, 2012
Did you read the papers?
gregor1
1 / 5 (7) Feb 17, 2012
It's the authority of the peer review process. It's not perfect but it's the best we have.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2012
Did you read the papers?

That intrigued me, so I just picked one off the list at random (scrolled down and clicked a link without looking).

Here's what happened:
"Bikini Atoll coral biodiversity resilience five decades after nuclear testing"

This paper doesn't even have anything to do with AWG. It doesn't even have anything to do with climate! WTF?

Then I looke through the list a little more. A lot of them are about local weather phenomena. WEATHER. Not CLIMATE. Like this stuff:
"Changing Heat-Related Mortality in the United States"
"Deaths and Death Rates from Extreme Weather Events: 1900-2008"
"Normalized Damage from Major Tornadoes in the United States: 18901999"

The list of ludicrous papers goes on and on. Someone put this list together in the hope no one would ever leaf through it and just be impressed by the size.

You know gregor1: citing papers that have nothing to do with climate as evidence against climate change? Not so smart.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.9 / 5 (42) Feb 17, 2012
"As an educator in the field of science for 10 years, I am myself still very skeptical..." - Mike Middle School educator

So is Mike skeptical about Evolution, the Big Bang, the consistency of the speed of light, or Global Warming, or the fact that the earth is't flat?

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Feb 17, 2012
"The long version of the IPCC report does mention natural causes of climate change, like the sun and oscillating ocean currents. But they no longer appear in the summary for politicians. They were simply edited out. To this day, many decision-makers don't know that new studies have seriously questioned the dominance of CO2. "
http://www.spiege...,00.html
Vendicar_Decarian
0.9 / 5 (42) Feb 17, 2012
Ya, when I looked at the same list 2 years ago I noted that virtually none of the papers have anything to do with climate change, and those that do typically do not contradict the consensus view.

The papers that do apply are at the margin's of the science and naturally may argue that some minor feature of the model needs to be tweaked here or there.

It is a list compiled by a know nothing nobody who hasn't got a clue as to how science works, and doesn't have the capacity to even comprehend the abstracts, let alone the articles themselves.

The list is heavily padded and articles chosen by title only from a google search.

Typical Denialist bullshit.

"This paper doesn't even have anything to do with AWG. It doesn't even have anything to do with climate! WTF?" - Antialias
Excalibur
5 / 5 (7) Feb 17, 2012
Looked at said list years ago.

WTF do, for example, botanists know about the underlying Physics?

As DS noted, it's the dummy's fallacy.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.9 / 5 (42) Feb 17, 2012
"The long version of the IPCC report does mention natural causes of climate change, like the sun and oscillating ocean currents." - RyggTard

Can you tell us then Tard Boy why your Denialist brothers insist on claiming that the IPCC claims that only CO2 is responsible for the observed rise in global temperatures?

They must be liars, or simply ignorant of the facts.

Vendicar_Decarian
0.9 / 5 (42) Feb 17, 2012
"To this day, many decision-makers don't know that new studies have seriously questioned the dominance of CO2." - Fritz Vahrenholt, 62, who holds a doctorate in chemistry

So we have an old man commenting outside of his former field of expertise, and jabbering about "studies" that only exist in his confused, tired, mind.

Sadly this is the best you have.

ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2012
"The climate-change industry the scientists, lawyers, consultants, lobbyists and, most importantly, the multinationals that work behind the scenes to cash in on the riches at stake has emerged as the worlds largest industry. Virtually every resident in the developed world feels the bite of this industry"
Enron advised the Clinton administration what to do at the Kyoto Japan Conference in 1997.

To improve its chances for success Enron hired former Environmental Protection Agency regulator John Palmisano to become the companys lead lobbyist as senior director for Environmental Policy and Compliance. Palismano wrote a memo describing the historic corporate achievement that was Kyoto.

If implemented this agreement will do more to promote Enrons business than will almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring of the energy and natural-gas industries in Europe and the United States,
http://my.telegra..._Kyoto_P
Vendicar_Decarian
0.7 / 5 (41) Feb 17, 2012
"Did you read the papers?" - Gregor1

I read a couple... They had nothing to do with climatology or global temperature.

Your list is bullshit and you have proven yourself to be a fool, who is incapable of interpreting the science, by trying to use it as a source.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Feb 17, 2012
"Enron now has excellent credentials with many green interests including Greenpeace, WWF [World Wildlife Fund], NRDC [Natural Resources Defense Council], German Watch, the U.S. Climate Action Network, the European Climate Action Network, Ozone Action, WRI [World Resources Institute] and Worldwatch. This position should be increasingly cultivated and capitalized on (monetized), Polisano explained.

Those who believe in Global Warming like to claim that they are opposed by corporate interests in the form of the energy companies. They neglect to mention that the battle isnt against corporations, it is between different groups of corporations. The energy companies are attempting to continue providing energy to consumers. Companies on the other side are merely attempting to create a financial opportunity for themselves as financial parasites who provide nothing to anyone and get rich in return."
http://my.telegra...cals_for
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Feb 17, 2012
"like Solyndra, Enron was a favorite of environmentalists, and Enron was a huge backer of the Kyoto Protocol. A decade ago, people liked to talk about links between Enrons chairman, Ken Lay, and President George W. Bush. But they leave out that the main thing Lay was urging on Bush was the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. Enron probably would have fared much better under a Gore administration."
"In April 2000, NRDC listed Enron as one of several progressive companies that support responsible global warming policy. Jim Marston with the Environmental Defense Fund also praised Enron, saying, They are smart. They think that being pro-environment is a good business and political strategy."
http://www.powerl...ndra.php
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Feb 17, 2012
"And then theres this squib about Enrons $150 million foray intowait for itsolar power: Federal officials, aware that solar power breakthroughs have shined and faded almost as often as the sun, say the Enron project could introduce commercially competitive technology without expensive Government aid. Thats from the New York Times . . . in 1994. Yet we keep falling for this same siren song.

Oh, and for icing on the cake, dont forget that Enron paid something like $50,000 to Paul Krugman to be an adviser. No wonder they went broke."
http://www.powerl...ndra.php
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Feb 18, 2012
"a 1998 letter, signed by Enron's then-CEO Ken Lay (and a few other bigwigs), asking President Clinton, in essence, to harm the reputations and credibility of scientists who argued that global warming was an overblown issue. Apparently they were standing in Enron's way.

The letter, dated Sept. 1, asked the president to shut off the public scientific debate on global warming, which continues to this date. In particular, it requested Clinton to "moderate the political aspects" of this discussion by appointing a bipartisan "Blue Ribbon Commission.""
"Enron commissioned its own internal study of global warming science. It turned out to be largely in agreement with the same scientists Enron was trying to shut up. "
"One of Enron's major consultants in that study was NASA scientists James Hansen, "
http://www.cato.o..._id=3388
deepsand
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 18, 2012
You know, Marjon, that you could turn a really tidy coin by doing commercial spamming for the so-called SEOs in India, Pakistan, and China.

I know some people, if you're interested.
Excalibur
5 / 5 (8) Feb 18, 2012
No doubt the quality requirements for that are rather low.
deepsand
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 18, 2012
Absolutely. You don't think I'd recommend somethings that Marjon's not qualified for, do you?
Vendicar_Decarian
0.8 / 5 (42) Feb 18, 2012
"a 1998 letter, signed by Enron's then-CEO Ken Lay (and a few other bigwigs), asking President Clinton, in essence, to harm the reputations and credibility of scientists who argued that global warming was an overblown issue." - RyggTard

Correct. Corrupt corporations have been attempting to use their undue influence to deny reality for a long, long time.

The assistance they have received from your Libertarian/Randite brothers in crime has been noted.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 18, 2012
The feigned outrage of the AGWites is so amusing.
Howhot
4 / 5 (8) Feb 18, 2012
R2; It always is amazing to read your half truths on stuff. Enron was wall-streets little darling during those days (like AT&T is today) and had everyone fooled. Yeah they sucked up to Clinton for there own gains, not Clintons. Al Gore was one of people to influence the vampire Enron to go green, not the other way around.

Also fact checking, Paul Krugman was MIT professor of economics. A consultant easily worth the 50,000 in for the right discussion. I don't believe you. But that leads us back to story doesn't it. An extreme rightwing think tank is manipulating you to say all of this, and you agree with that think tanks point of view.

You have basically bought hook-line-and-sinker the propaganda position being sold by these carpet baggers of the loonatic fringe. Or you do it for money.

Also the website you reference IE: the CATO Institute, is the worst wacko right wing nut-job website I've ever read. They must be paying you nicely to post here. False hoods from a phoney.
Howhot
4 / 5 (8) Feb 18, 2012
R2:
The feigned outrage of the AGWites is so amusing.


R2 my friend, at least I do it for free and I'm not a whore to CATO.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.9 / 5 (43) Feb 18, 2012
Of course the real issue of RyggTard's quote is why he decides to quote from a CATO Institute publication. CATO is an Libertarian company that like the Heritage Institute, makes it's money by lying to the American People in order to facilitate the corporate takeover of America.

And who wrote the Libertarian propaganda piece quoted? Why none other than Patrick J. Michaels. A former third rate scientist who now makes a living writing propaganda for the CATO institute.

So here we have a known congenital Libertarian liar - RyggTard, using a known congenital Libertarian liar as a source, as published on a known dishonest Libertarian propaganda website.

And this kind of delusional crap from RyggTard is why no one takes him seriously.
Excalibur
4.3 / 5 (11) Feb 18, 2012
The feigned outrage of the AGWites is so amusing.

Not nearly as amusing as the ignorance of the denialist sock puppets.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 18, 2012
"You cant read the science journal Nature without being bombarded by ads by from oil companies. Is Nature bought and paid for by Big Oil? Is Media Matters tracking gifts from wind and solar companies to environmental advocacy groups? Why not? "
http://blog.heart...e-again/
"We should hire private investigators to look into the personal lives of Fox News anchors, hosts, reporters, prominent contributors, senior network and corporate staff."
http://www.thebla...targets/
How typical of the socialists. If you don't like the message, stifle it.
Soros is a major supporter of Media Matters and climate change propaganda.
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (44) Feb 18, 2012
CATO isn't the worst. The John Birch Society has CATO beat.

"Also the website you reference IE: the CATO Institute, is the worst wacko right wing nut-job website I've ever read." - Howhot
Vendicar_Decarian
0.8 / 5 (42) Feb 18, 2012
"You cant read the science journal Nature without being " - RyggTard

And now Tard boy quotes from a Heartland Institute blog. The same Corporation that has just been exposed for trying to create a school program for the purpose of dissuading the teaching of science, and the same corporation that argues to this day (funded by the tobacco industry of course), that smoking isn't dangerous.

RyggTard is a perfect example of a Libertarian/Randite. Dishonest to the core.

I have never encountered a Libertarian/Randite who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (10) Feb 18, 2012
Paul Krugman was MIT professor of economics.

If Kruman's MIT creds have value so do Lindzen's.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.9 / 5 (43) Feb 18, 2012
Error 404 File not found.

Odd how so many of RyggTard's references just don't seem to link to anything real.

Perhaps his URL links to a server on planet Conservadopia or it's forest moon of Libertaria.

"Enron now has excellent credentials with many green interests including Greenpeace, WWF [World Wildlife Fund], NRDC [Natural Resources Defense Council], German Watch, the U.S. Climate Action Network, the European Climate Action Network, Ozone Action, WRI" - RyggTard
Excalibur
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 18, 2012
If Kruman's MIT creds have value so do Lindzen's.


That, Marjon, is logically fallacious.

No surprise, though, considering the source.
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (44) Feb 18, 2012
"If Kruman's MIT creds have value so do Lindzen's." - RyggTard

Krugman is a Nobel Prize winning Economist.

Lindzen is a washed up scientist who has a long and gloried history of being wrong almost 100 percent of the time.

That is why Lindzen spends his days Shilling for Big Oil. He needs their money.
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (44) Feb 18, 2012
How Faux news lies to the American People.

http://www.youtub...=related

Just like CATO, the Heritage Foundation, the CEI, the AEI, and all of the other Libertarian propaganda groups do.

"We should hire private investigators to look into the personal lives of Fox News anchors, hosts, reporters, prominent contributors, senior network and corporate staff." - RyggTard

Indeed
Howhot
4 / 5 (8) Feb 18, 2012
"We should hire private investigators to look into the personal lives of Fox News anchors, hosts, reporters, prominent contributors, senior network and corporate staff." - RyggTard

Indeed


Indeed!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Feb 18, 2012
From Marx:
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the state

laissez-fairerepublic.com/TenPlanks.html

The Soros socialists keep trying to control the press.
Excalibur
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 18, 2012
Groucho was as Physicist? :shock:

Just more of your "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit" show.

Vendicar_Decarian
0.9 / 5 (42) Feb 18, 2012
Get off the drugs RyggTard

"A heavy progressive or graduated income tax." - RyggTard

Over the last 30 years, wealth inequality in America has exploded in part because of the reduction in the tax rate for those with high incomes.

"Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly."" - RyggTard

In America credit is not a monopoly of the state but is in fact decided upon by a market in which each individual bank judges whether an individual applying for credit can be trusted to pay it back.

"Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the state' - RyggTard

In America there is no government monopoly on the transportation of people or goods. Virtually all vehicles are privately owned.

Poor Delusional Libertarian.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Feb 18, 2012
Groucho was as Physicist? :shock:

Just more of your "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit" show.


Apparently the AP and physorg believe this is a significant story. A free market group is opposed to socialism. Where is the news?
Why not report how socialists have been paying to push the AGW agenda?
But when the dominant media outlets loose control of the message, they must attack the successful messengers.
Just as Marx noted and even Enron tried to get the Clinton administration to shut down any opposition to AGW, which I have noted.
It must make the socialist AGWite's head explode when they find out they were useful idiots for Enron.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Feb 18, 2012
"ABC developed and heavily promoted a nightmare "documentary" of our future (unless we listen to the environmentalists).

"There was no opposition. The show pretended to be fact but only presented two points of view the world will end and mankind will return to dark ages after billions die. Or mankind will wise up, embrace all sorts of left-wing eco-solutions, abandon suburbs, live sustainably, pay much higher taxes and magically flourish."
If only some liberal president, who controlled both houses of Congress and had a devoted, compliant media could make that happen. So much for science fiction."

Read more: http://newsbuster...mmFbQE1B
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2012
"The BBC is committed by its charter to report with accuracy and impartiality. Yet on climate change, it has adopted a clear party line, which has run through almost every aspect of its broadcasting."

At a secret high-level seminar in January 2006, 30 of the BBCs most senior staff listened as a former president of the Royal Society, Lord May, told them that the scientific debate over climate change was over, and that the BBC must stop reporting the sceptics."

Read more: http://www.dailym...mmGedbVN

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2012
"The SEJ proclaims their mission to be the creation of a formal network of reporters that write about environmental issues. To that end, they maintain a website, run a listserv and send out regular email alerts to coordinate the coverage and make sure no one deviates from story template and action line."
"The SEJ is supported mainly by foundation grants from many of the places that fund Bill Moyers and PBS. "
"The mere existence of the Society of Environmental Journalists shows first hand how the media world works, providing the infrastructure to journalists engaged in the practice of global warming advocacy journalism."
http://www.americ...act.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2012
"Now the beleaguered multi-national agency, fresh from a disappointing round of climate negotiations in Cancun, wants something more concrete: actual story lines in movies, television and social media drawing attention to the dangers of global warming.

The push comes at a time when public concern over climate change has plummeted in the polls and Congress has rejected federal legislation to curb greenhouse gas emissions."
http://latimesblo...ing.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Feb 18, 2012
"The Associated Press employed 11 reporters to fact check the 432 pages of Sarah Palins autobiography, Going Rogue, but only used five scribes to fact check the more than 1,000 pages of Climategate e-mails. "
http://www.caroli...?id=5909

Note this is an AP story.
Excalibur
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 18, 2012
How much are you being paid, Marjon, to keep dropping your link spam here?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 18, 2012
How much are you being paid, Marjon, to keep dropping your link spam here?

It seems that it is the promoters of AGW that need to be paid to promote their propaganda.
Enron, Solyndra, BP, Soros, Buffet all profit from the AGW scam.
How much are you paid?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Feb 18, 2012
"In 2000, an Enron memo exclaimed that the treaty would be "good for Enron stock!" The company planned to get rich off of brokering a government-created industry in carbon-credit trading. Also, Enron's coal-fired power plants were all in third-world countries unaffected by the treaty."
"Pointing out who profits from "green" policy is as legitimate as pointing out who would profit from deregulation or tax cuts--a favorite media pastime."
http://www.huffin...017.html
Vendicar_Decarian
0.7 / 5 (40) Feb 18, 2012
"AGW scam." - RyggTard

The only scam is coming from Libertarian propaganda groups like the Heritage Institute that have now been outed as trying to prevent the teaching of science in public schools.

Truth is poison to Libertarians and Randites.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.7 / 5 (40) Feb 18, 2012
One wonders how or why you would "fact check" personal Emails sent between scientists.

Perhaps doing so makes sense on Planet Conservadopia, but not here in the real world.

"...but only used five scribes to fact check the more than 1,000 pages of Climategate e-mails." - RyggTard
Eric_B
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2012
RYGGLE-SLOUCH "How many were forced to watch Algore's movie in school?"

Less than 97%, the percentage of actual scientists that support AGW.
kochevnik
4.3 / 5 (7) Feb 18, 2012
I am overjoyed to see reports coming out about the Koch brother's Heartland disinformation Institute
gregor1
1 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2012
I apologize for posting 900 links. Here's just one from last week that shows there's nothing unusual happening to the ice in Greenland. Common guys.... we should be happy about this.http://www.leif.o...9444.pdf
Excalibur
5 / 5 (9) Feb 18, 2012
Sorry, G1, but your citation proves nothing of the sort.

Did you even bother to read it? Or, is it that you do not understand that past causes and effects are immaterial to present ones?
gregor1
1 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2012
Ok Excalibur you obviously didn't quite get it. What do other people think?Here's a quote. "The
record indicates that warmer temperatures were the norm in
the earlier part of the past 4000 years, including centurylong
intervals nearly 1°C warmer than the present decade (2001
2010). Therefore, we conclude that the current decadal mean
temperature in Greenland has not exceeded the envelope of
nat ural vari abi l i t y over t he past 4000 years, a peri od t hat
seems to include part of the Holocene Thermal Maximum.
Notwithstanding this conclusion, climate models project that
if anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions continue, the
Greenland temperature would exceed the natural variability
of the past 4000 years sometime before t he year 2100"
He plays lip service to the models none of which have predicted anything so far. What do other people think?
gregor1
1 / 5 (8) Feb 18, 2012
@Excalibur Our co2 emmisions are skyrocketing and yet the warming in Greenland is quite normal. I think it's reasonable to surmise that if co2 causes warming then the temperatures should be skyrocketing too, especially as the effect is supposed to be amplified in the polar regions. I realize as a magical sword, you may be prone to magical thinking but your magical computer models are . not science
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Feb 18, 2012
I am overjoyed to see reports coming out about the Koch brother's Heartland disinformation Institute

Are you as overjoyed at being a useful idiot for Soros, Buffet, Gore, Enron, Solyndra, BP and the other corporate socialists lobbying for govt handouts?
Vendicar_Decarian
0.6 / 5 (39) Feb 19, 2012
"Are you as overjoyed at being a useful idiot for Soros, Buffet, Gore, ..." - RyggTard

None of whom have anything to do with the release of Libertarian Heartland Institute documents that show how that organization is massively corrupt and has been planning an attack on the American education system in order to prevent the teaching of science.

Since you are also a Libertarian RyggTard, perhaps you can explain to us why lying is an all pervasive attitude in Libertarian circles?

Howhot
5 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2012
Here is the difference between the Libertarians (neo-cons IMHO), conservatives along with the ilk of the CATO institute, Heritage Foundation, Heartland Institute verses the little old liberals like me. Liberals don't lie to your face.

For the Heartland Institute, this is just their typical M.O. Lie the big lie and sucker millions from the doped and dooped teabaggers.
deepsand
5 / 5 (8) Feb 20, 2012
The sad part is that the Teabaggers won't even admit that they've been duped, even when presented with insider documentation from the new Robber Barrons themselves.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.5 / 5 (38) Feb 20, 2012
"The sad part is that the Teabaggers won't even admit that they've been duped." - Deepsand

There will be no progress in America until the source of the Conservative/Libertarian poison is known to the vast majority of Americans.

The Tea Bagger class can be excluded from those who will ever know, as can the intersecting Libertarian class.

These two classes constitute perhaps 20 percent of the U.S. population.

Assuming the remaining 80 percent is distributed equally between Liberals and Conservatives, a 75 percent majority in identifying the problem will require that 87 percent of all Republicans reject their own party over it's singular complicity in destroying the American state.

Since this is unlikely, even over the next 2 generations, we can reasonably conclude that America will continue on the path of rapid decline for the next 40 years.

gregor1
1 / 5 (5) Feb 20, 2012
Here's some more good news. There's been no detectable trend in the ice mass of the Antarctic ice sheet since 1979. Given that the magical (Not science) models say the effects of co2 should be amplified at the poles surly this is good news though not good news for those hell bent on revolution , hey Vendi darling xxxxhttp://www.leif.o...0713.pdf
Excalibur
5 / 5 (6) Feb 20, 2012
Throwing the same old crap at the wall, G1, isn't going to make it smell any better.

As already noted, that cited work does not prove your conclusion.
gregor1
1 / 5 (5) Feb 21, 2012
So peer reviewed science is crap then. I'm not trying to prove anything I'm trying to disprove something namely the hypothesis that anthropogenic co2 is causing catastrophic global warming. I think you'll agree that co2 has gone up in recent years but there's no signs in Greenland or antarctica yet. Speculation on the future provides no testable hypothesis so is outside the realms of science. Computer models see the future but they havn't got it right after 20 years or so and they're not science anyway
deepsand
5 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2012
Firstly, neither of your citations prove what you here claim.

More importantly, it is physically impossible that an increase in CO2 not result in increased radiative forcing.