A "Think Tank" climate change denial organization exposed

edit: Note that these documents have not yet been substantiated, so these comments are based on the idea that they are, in fact, true:

Breaking news: A look behind the curtain of the Heartland Institute’s climate change spin.

Someone going by the handle "Heartland Insider" has anonymously released quite a few of what are claimed to be internal documents from Heartland, revealing the Institute’s strategies, funds, and much more.

[large snip]

In this document they say:

[Dr. Wojick's] effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain – two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.

They are literally, even by their own wording, trying to manufacture a controversy, and prevent the teaching of science.

How much you want to bet that this gets little traction in the corporate media, while "Climategate", the manufactured controversy that had no substance to it, got so much?

I think people who argue against the scientific method are - and I don't know how to express this subtly enough - a part of a threat to humanity. I wonder how one could legislate against such things; perhaps it could be argued it's a form of pollution.

If there is any justice in this world, these guys will be dragged out into the sunlight and crushed like the cockroaches they are.

Podunk wrote:

If there is any justice in this world, these guys will be dragged out into the sunlight and crushed like the cockroaches they are.

Not gonna happen, sadly.

I took a quick look through some of those documents. Very interesting reading.

Their budget document shows that they're spending more than $25,000 a month to pay people to write anti-climate change articles. Craig Idso, Chairman for the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, is is raking $11,600 a month for his efforts. Remember the anti-climate change folks criticisms that scientists were just supporting climate change because it made them money?

There's also a mysterious "Anonymous Donor" (yup, that's actually how they refer to him in their internal documents) who is personally responsible for virtually all of their donations from individuals (the rest comes from corporations and other foundations) and about a quarter of their operating budget for last year. This person has donated more than $13.3 million to the Heartland Institute since 2007. It's a pretty safe bet that whoever has $13 million to throw at an anti-climate change think tank is currently making money hand-over-fist from the various industries that would be negatively impacted by climate change policies.

Gee, and I thought demonizing science went out in the 1600's. Silly me.

Malor wrote:

How much you want to bet that this gets little traction in the corporate media, while "Climategate", the manufactured controversy that had no substance to it, got so much?

I'd say you would lose your bet, so far.

Bear wrote:

Gee, and I thought demonizing science went out in the 1600's. Silly me.

We are a culture that marginalizes intelligence and celebrates aggressive stupidity. That pre-dates the climate change debate by decades.

It was only a few years ago that it was quite trendy to hate and mistrust experts.

That didn't really get serious until fairly recently, Lobster. It wasn't that bad when I was growing up.

You know, I remember talking with one of my smart friends, who was a big political junkie. I remember her saying, during the Clinton administration, "Okay, that's it. The idiots have won. They are now in charge, and it's all downhill from here. Time to leave the country." (and she did, and lives happily in Canada.) I don't remember what the specific observation was, because I was too young at the time to really be following politics, but I remember her absolute certainty that the majority of the US had flipped over to stupidity, that the country would be unable to fix its problems, and would eventually fail.

So far, I'd call that observation extremely accurate. That was sometime around 1994 or 1995, if I remember correctly.

God, I wish I could remember what the specific issue was that convinced her that the dummies had taken over.

There were a lot of events in the Clinton administration that could have triggered that kind of reaction, no matter whose side you were on.

LobsterMobster wrote:

There were a lot of events in the Clinton administration that could have triggered that kind of reaction, no matter whose side you were on.

Yup. And every administration since then too.

Maybe she found "a set of detailed instructions for use in a packet of toothpicks".

Not even counting the money directly given to these charlatans the time and money spent having to refute them is such an unimaginable waste. Imagine if scientists could work on the problems involved with global warming instead of just having to waste time on making people believe in it. I honestly believe the people responsible for this should go to jail because of the fraud they have been perpetrating and the time and money that has essentially been stolen because of it.

LobsterMobster wrote:

We are a culture that marginalizes intelligence and celebrates aggressive stupidity. That pre-dates the climate change debate by decades.

It was only a few years ago that it was quite trendy to hate and mistrust experts.

You sound like one of those east coast liberal elitists with all your fancy talk about science and intelligence. I bet you're a socialist too!

Bear wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:

We are a culture that marginalizes intelligence and celebrates aggressive stupidity. That pre-dates the climate change debate by decades.

It was only a few years ago that it was quite trendy to hate and mistrust experts.

You sound like one of those east coast liberal elitists with all your fancy talk about science and intelligence. I bet you're a socialist too!

You know that the only way to find out if a lobster is really red is to boil it alive, right? I think we all know what must be done here.

Rallick wrote:

You know that the only way to find out if a lobster is really red is to boil it alive, right? I think we all know what must be done here.

I'll get the butter!

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/7GAeg.jpg)

Пребывание назад! Я имею крабов!

Thanks for the warning, comrade! (Hmmmm crab. Almost as tasty as lobster!)

On topic, I think it once again demonstrates the moral bankruptcy of these people. The results of climate change are poorly understood, but they are monumental, and while we probably won't be affected too much within our lifetime, our children and grandchildren will be the ones suffering. Nevertheless, they don't seem to care about this. If these documents turn out to be authentic, they are knowingly ignoring the science in favor of political ideology.

Also, every time climate change denialism comes up, I think of this comic:
IMAGE(http://i748.photobucket.com/albums/xx123/TheRallick/climatehoax.jpg)

LobsterMobster wrote:

Пребывание назад! Я имею крабов!

That's a bit racist. Not all socialists speak Russian, you know. Some socialists can be French-speaking, atheist, freemason, openly gay southern immigrants too!

Rallick wrote:

On topic, I think it once again demonstrates the moral bankruptcy of these people. The results of climate change are poorly understood, but they are monumental, and while we probably won't be affected too much within our lifetime, our children and grandchildren will be the ones suffering. Nevertheless, they don't seem to care about this. If these documents turn out to be authentic, they are knowingly ignoring the science in favor of political ideology.

I'm not saying they're right, but I don't think it's quite so cut-and-dry as that. We're in the middle of one of the greatest global recessions in history, and a lot of the deniers believe (honestly) that environmentalism always reduces progress and profits. They think it would hurt an already weak economy. They think it's more important to help people get back on their feet right now instead of letting them suffer in poverty for the sake of an uncertain, non-immediate threat. Of course that kind of thinking can get us into all sorts of trouble, from federal debt to industrial disaster.

dejanzie wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:

Пребывание назад! Я имею крабов!

That's a bit racist. Not all socialists speak Russian, you know. Some socialists can be French-speaking, atheist, freemason, openly gay southern immigrants too!

Yes, but SOME of them speak Russian. And SOME of them speak English through a crappy free internet Russian translator!

and a lot of the deniers believe (honestly) that environmentalism always reduces progress and profits.

Well, to some degree, they're right. A lot of modern capitalism is based on not paying for the damage you inflict, or consuming energy resources that can't be replaced. A sustainable economy will require that we pay for both these things in full when we use them, which will make goods substantially more expensive, and which will decrease living standards.

But living standards will decrease a hell of a lot more if we don't. It'll just take a few decades.

"I don't want to vaccinate my daughter. The needle hurts and it makes her cry!"

Malor wrote:

But living standards will decrease a hell of a lot more if we don't. It'll just take a few decades.

Yeah, but the people calling the shots won't still be alive in a few decades.

Rallick wrote:

"I don't want to vaccinate my daughter. The needle hurts and it makes her cry!"

I'm not saying it's not short-sighted!

Lady, if she ends up paralyzed from polio, a very common outcome, she'll cry a hell of a lot more.